A home

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

I have a lot to learn! I finally actually took a photograph of one of our area's vintage home's! This I believe is a Victorian revival, or something in that area! I used my Nikon F100 with its Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS lens, handheld, and loaded with FujiFilm 400! Why is it this ugly! I used F/8 and basically shot it handheld, but, why does it look so odd!

Oh, I used LR4 to adjust the crooked sloppy job I did, and cropped it too!

Americo J Rodriguez-4 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Americo J Rodriguez by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Rick A · Oct 20, 2014

For starters, it's overly blue, was it underexposed? Could it be bad processing?

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Rick A said:
For starters, it's overly blue, was it underexposed? Could it be bad processing?

It may have been both! I just basically depended on the F100 to expose. The processing was done at my local Walgreen's 1 HOUR lab! I used my Epson V500 photo scanner for the negative, at default settings!

Sirius Glass · Oct 20, 2014

The color balance is off. Also use a longer lenses to get less distortion.

Alex Muir · Oct 20, 2014

What is it that you don't like about your picture? If it is the converging vertical lines, that is normally caused by pointing the camera up. It is more pronounced with wide angle lenses like your 28mm. You can avoid it by keeping the camera level front to back so that the film plane is vertical and therefore parallel to the walls of the house. The problem can be that you don't get the full height of the building in the frame. A higher viewpoint would help, but may not have been possible. You can get a Perspective Control or Shift lens that helps, but they are expensive, and not really necessary unless you specialise in architecture. I'm not sure about the colour of your image. It looks a bit blue. I think you have made a good job of isolating the subject.
Alex.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
The color balance is off. Also use a longer lenses to get less distortion.

Sirius Glass, Tis be mi only lens at the moment! xD The Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS manual focus without a tripod, is not very happy by my follies! I did use my feet to move closer however, but, at five feet six short inches, I was dwarfed by this magnificent structure!

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Alex Muir said:
What is it that you don't like about your picture? If it is the converging vertical lines, that is normally caused by pointing the camera up. It is more pronounced with wide angle lenses like your 28mm. You can avoid it by keeping the camera level front to back so that the film plane is vertical and therefore parallel to the walls of the house. The problem can be that you don't get the full height of the building in the frame. A higher viewpoint would help, but may not have been possible. You can get a Perspective Control or Shift lens that helps, but they are expensive, and not really necessary unless you specialise in architecture. I'm not sure about the colour of your image. It looks a bit blue.

"I think you have made a good job of isolating the subject."
Alex.

Alex, Thank you, I appreciate your remark, very much! What I don't like, is that it seems to be not as sharp as I expected! The color's are just as the film made them, so I really have no clue about that area! It may be the fact that the fujifilm 400 sold at my Walmart, is not up to par, however, I doubt this, as I double doubt my skill!

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-8 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

MattKing · Oct 20, 2014

Colour problems are most likely due to scanning and post-processing issues - we intentionally don't cover those issues here on APUG, but the sister site - dpug.org - permits discussion of them.

As for sharpness:

1) the scan could very well be the source of the problem; or
2) it could be due to camera shake at the time of exposure.

If you are going to test the performance of cameras and lenses, a tripod is really a good idea.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-11 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Trail Images · Oct 20, 2014

Just a couple thoughts here. One is the house is really a neat old Victorian. My brother owns one in Redlands, Ca.
The camera back not being held parallel is a portion of the "keystone" effect or affect. The top tipped backward.
There are several ways to get rid of the blue cast. Not to dive into too much without maybe going over to DPUG where post processing is more acceptable.

I find most all my images have a cast, film, exposure, scan, too much of one color in a scene.....etc, and I really don't worry about it. Again several ways to cure it. Many times it is just not seeing it that can be a bit of a challenge. In this case, looks pretty obvious with the blue. A simple start is to find the most black spot and use the black eyedropper in Curves or Levels and click on the darkest point. Or, do the reverse and find a white spot and use the white eyedropper. Either should improve the look so far as the blue cast.......again, a really neat old house.

removed account4 · Oct 20, 2014

hi there

disregarding the hue

nice elevation and 3/4 views !

often times it is extremely hard to get far enough back with a moderate wide lens
to take a view straight on, without tilting the camera ( tripod, and post level helps straighten things out if you need one, the levels are cheap ! )
and without a shift lens. its hard because you get too far back and the building is miniscule, you get too close the lines converge
and the goldielox spot is usually with your back up against a wall, in the middle of the road, or someplace awkward.
if the lines need to converge, go with it, and exploit it with detail shots and let the verticals be straight on ( and enlarge them if you have to
if you are too far back )

1870s-90s architecture is a lot of fun !

DWThomas · Oct 20, 2014

Indeed, that is quite an impressive house!

I had two thoughts - one, did you get any prints made? Seeing what the lab returned versus your results might sort out any scanning problems. (I find letting scanning software think for itself often leads to disappointing results, especially in regard to contrast.)

Another thought would be to try some transparency film, that way you can see the actual positive image through a loupe and get some idea of the sharpness and color. Even here, if you put a negative over a light table (outdoor window, photo editor with white computer screen, etc.) you could look at it with a magnifier (your 28 mm lens, for example) and see if things look sharper than your scan.

I do sadly fear that the quality of color processing, especially at non-photo businesses, is declining.

And to second above comments, using a tripod could eliminate one possible source of fuzziness. Lacking a tripod, you might hold the camera down firmly on a stone wall, heavy park bench or some similar solid immoveable object to assure the camera is not wobbling.

snapguy · Oct 20, 2014

time of day

Every house is situated so that a certain time of day is perfect for it and perhaps not for neighboring houses. You might give that a thought. Personally, I'd shoot it in black and white being an olde house and all.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

I have been using my scanner and my anti-Newton Ring glass incorrectly!
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/msdry.html

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

snapguy said:
Every house is situated so that a certain time of day is perfect for it and perhaps not for neighboring houses. You might give that a thought. Personally, I'd shoot it in black and white being an olde house and all.

The funny thing is, I stood in the middle of the road during a decently busy time period! I got a little carried away! You are correct as well, it was onl;y after viewing all the tree shadow's did I realize the time frame was not prime! xD

frank · Oct 20, 2014

My guess guess is that the problem is a combination of poor processing and poor scanning. Here is your pic with a few tweaks.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

frank said:
My guess guess is that the problem is a combination of poor processing and poor scanning. Here is your pic with a few tweaks.

Blimey! It looks haunted! Nice work processing wise! My goal's were to leave it as is, in order to demonstrate film, however, as you may now know, I scanned the negative incorrectly! I am on the fix soon, however, I must head out to my son's soccer practice! BRB! xD

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-14 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-13 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 20, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-18 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 21, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-45 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 23, 2014

Americo J Rodriguez-7 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

pbromaghin · Oct 23, 2014

I think you have scanning problems. This took about 30 seconds to alter.

aRolleiBrujo · Oct 23, 2014

pbromaghin said:
I think you have scanning problems. This took about 30 seconds to alter.

View attachment 96608

I've been told this many times, I was assuming that I would first post a sort of staright from the film photo, before alterations, however, I will use presets since I have little skill!

A home

aRolleiBrujo

Rick A

aRolleiBrujo

Sirius Glass

Alex Muir

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

MattKing

Moderator

aRolleiBrujo

Trail Images

removed account4

DWThomas

snapguy

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

frank

Attachments

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

aRolleiBrujo

pbromaghin

aRolleiBrujo

A home

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency