First roll from Nikon FG!

amsp · Jun 16, 2012

Chris Nielsen said:
That does sound rather dire, especially if it's a photo lab using one.

I went to a local 1-hour lab the other week and not only did they overdevelop and scratch my film, they scanned it on an epson V300 that they didn't even know how to use. The files were completely overexposed and blue in color. Nothing surprises me anymore.

elcabezagrande · Jun 16, 2012

The color looks like cross-processed slide film. The scans are horrible, I would want my money back, and never get film scanned there again. The FG with (I'm guessing) the Series E 50/1.8 is capable of outstanding results. Use slower film in daylight (100/200 ASA) and you can get stellar results.

Nikon FG, E 50/1.8, Fuji Reala 100, Noritsu scan to cd
Wide open:

013_19A by Greyscale3, on Flickr

Stepped down, probably f8 or f11

Hydro-electric dam by Greyscale3, on Flickr

cepwin · Jun 16, 2012

From this and Amsp's experience it sounds like if you don't develop it yourself sending it out to a lab with a known reputation is the best bet. Oh...let me be clear...the scans I did ...problem is I bought a not up to snuff scanner. And yes, I to think there might have been some x-processing as I said last night...it appears so. Oh, I should add Elca they are stunning pix.

Les Sarile · Jun 16, 2012

I would suspect the scanning first and the C41 lab processing second. BTW, is the "scanner" one that is essentially a camera as opposed to either a flatbed type or dedicated film scanner type?

E. von Hoegh · Jun 16, 2012

Do you have an operators manual for the camera? If not, get one and study it.

edit - The scans are horrible indeed, but it looks like they are scans of tremendously overexposed negatives. If you were shooting wide open in full dalyight with 400 ISO film, your shutter speed should have been something like 1/32000 of a second.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 16, 2012

that'g going a hell of a lot further than my right arm!

Les Sarile · Jun 16, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
edit - The scans are horrible indeed, but it looks like they are scans of tremendously overexposed negatives. If you were shooting wide open in full dalyight with 400 ISO film, your shutter speed should have been something like 1/32000 of a second.

The max shutter speed of the FG is only 1/1000 so that would only be 5 stops overexposure. Unlike digis most films can handle that comfortably and have room for recovery like Kodak Portra 400.

For instance I came upon this scene that required 1/60 per the meter but I wanted 1/4 and had no ND filters with me. Knowing how Kodak Ektar 100 handles overexposure, I figure I would have no problem using the results.

cepwin · Jun 16, 2012

Interesting. I didn't think they were way over exposed...I did have some others overexposed on that roll though After reading the comment I checked the histogram and it didn't indicate it either (Although I'm not sure how valid that is for film.) I do have the manual.

MFstooges · Jun 19, 2012

Easier if you could post what exactly is your scanner brand and type. I suspect you used cheap scanner like this :
http://www.amazon.com/Ion-Photo-Negative-Converter-SLIDES2PC/dp/B001DCGMR4/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header
or maybe cheaper version of that scanner.

amsp · Jun 20, 2012

MFstooges said:
Easier if you could post what exactly is your scanner brand and type. I suspect you used cheap scanner like this :
http://www.amazon.com/Ion-Photo-Negative-Converter-SLIDES2PC/dp/B001DCGMR4/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header
or maybe cheaper version of that scanner.

That was my guess too, inside is just a cheap low-res camera that photographs your negative.

First roll from Nikon FG!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency