How can I improve? (GW690)

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Hey APUG,

I have always seen mixed results, never a steady pattern, yet I use the same cameras, film, and scanner for the most part. I am not here to ask a scanning question, believe me, but if any non-purists out there have scanning tips, I am all ears. Here is the deal:

I just received a roll of Ektar 100 (not expired) shot with my GW690ii. If you've read my posts you'll know that I love this camera, but I feel there could be room for improvement with exposures, or maybe its the processing of my film. My original attempt to resolve this compressed/overly grainy look was to send the film out to a highly regarded film developer. I am not loving this supernatural, highly saturated color with heavy vignetting. Do other GW690 users get this kind of vignette? I have shot Ektar in all seasons but it seems like the winter is especially harsh in terms of the effect on color. Granted, this picture is during an intense sunrise, but my partner said it looks like it was taken on a different planet... Could I be exposing my film more effectively to avoid such color distortion or should I just stick with Portra 400?

heespharm · Mar 14, 2015

Holy color shift batman... What did u expose it at

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moopheus · Mar 14, 2015

I have the same camera and have not noticed the vignetting to the extent shown in that scan. But I've mostly been working with my b&w shots, and only just getting around to scanning my color (I just used up the last of my stash of Reala ).

As to the graininess, you shouldn't be seeing that much in Ektar. But it might also be a scanning artifact (grain aliasing). I use Neat Image to clean that up. And this is where the obligatory mention of continuing that discussion over on DPUG comes in.

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

heespharm said:
Holy color shift batman... What did u expose it at

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The first shot (the moon setting) was shot 1/30 - f3.5 - handheld with Kodak Ektar 100.
The second shot I don't have my exact exposure logged, but it was around 1/500 at f8-11 - same film/roll.

Very different lighting conditions, as the moon finally set, the second image is when the sun was taking over the lake.

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Moopheus said:
I have the same camera and have not noticed the vignetting to the extent shown in that scan. But I've mostly been working with my b&w shots, and only just getting around to scanning my color (I just used up the last of my stash of Reala ).

As to the graininess, you shouldn't be seeing that much in Ektar. But it might also be a scanning artifact (grain aliasing). I use Neat Image to clean that up. And this is where the obligatory mention of continuing that discussion over on DPUG comes in.

I would be happy to talk on DPUG if any of my threads had been approved. I have attempted twice and never received "moderator approval" - not sure why. I'm not blaming the camera, but I feel that I could be exposing better somehow. Perhaps it is the scanner, but this has carried over from one to the next.

Dan Daniel · Mar 14, 2015

The vignetting is not right. Do you have a filter on the lens?

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Dan Daniel said:
The vignetting is not right. Do you have a filter on the lens?

No filter whatsoever.

Dan Daniel · Mar 14, 2015

Using the built-in lens hood or an add-on hood?

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Dan Daniel said:
Using the built-in lens hood or an add-on hood?

This was with the built in lens hood extended and in-use.

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Same camera, ALSO with no filter, using built in hood, but with Kodak Portra 800 instead of Ektar. Same developer, scanning protocol, etc.

Dan Daniel · Mar 14, 2015

Weird....

Flip a negative 180 degrees and re-'image' (I'll avoid one ofthe unwelcome word here, but you get the idea- like an enlarger for making images from a negative but different). See if the vignetting pattern follows the negative or stays. This will tell you if it's the camera or the 'secondary imaging device.'

Dan Daniel · Mar 14, 2015

LMNOP said:
Same camera, ALSO with no filter, using built in hood, but with Kodak Portra 800 instead of Ektar. Same developer, scanning protocol, etc.

That looks fine. I'd dump the Ektar! I could never get it to 'image' properly for me. I know other people work it well but it was never worth the time for me to get a handle on it.

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

Dan Daniel said:
That looks fine. I'd dump the Ektar! I could never get it to 'image' properly for me. I know other people work it well but it was never worth the time for me to get a handle on it.

Yeah, I am starting to think Ektar is just cheap and harder to work with. I've had stunning results with it, but the fact is Portra 160-400-800 have ALL been more consistent for me.

eng1er · Mar 14, 2015

Can you see the vignetting on the negative? That sunrise shot looks like a crummy scan to me--not necessarily indicative of a bad neg. Lot of variables to go through: various scanner settings, post processing settings, and the quality of the scanner itself before we can indict the film.

Hatchetman · Mar 14, 2015

my guess is underexposure. scanner is attempting to "fix" an exposure problem.

LMNOP · Mar 14, 2015

eng1er said:
Can you see the vignetting on the negative? That sunrise shot looks like a crummy scan to me--not necessarily indicative of a bad neg. Lot of variables to go through: various scanner settings, post processing settings, and the quality of the scanner itself before we can indict the film.

I run all negatives through the same software with the same neutral settings. it is always strange to me that certain images turn out different quality. Though I feel certain films are more cooperative or forgiving. In this case, the vignetting does not really appear on the negative.

heespharm · Mar 14, 2015

LMNOP said:
I run all negatives through the same software with the same neutral settings. it is always strange to me that certain images turn out different quality. Though I feel certain films are more cooperative or forgiving. In this case, the vignetting does not really appear on the negative.

Sticky shutter causing underexposure in the cold?? Known to happen in some fujis??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 14, 2015

You must play with your lenses rules , find where it is good at and continue from there. Infinity is immensely high quality , may be you must crop top and bottom and go from there, with japanese optics , good and bad is always together. May be its hasselblad time

Moopheus · Mar 14, 2015

LMNOP said:
I would be happy to talk on DPUG if any of my threads had been approved. I have attempted twice and never received "moderator approval" - not sure why.

Maybe that's why there's not that much activity over there.

eng1er · Mar 14, 2015

Moopheus said:
Maybe that's why there's not that much activity over there.

No kidding. I poked around over there briefly just to see what it was like. Answer: ghost town. I just assumed it was because people who came of (photographic) age in the digital era relied more on their cameras/computers and didn't put as much thought into process (even though it would behoove them the opposite), but maybe it's a weird moderation system they have over there.

vpwphoto · Mar 14, 2015

You folks have overthought this!!!
Early late time the color temp is always skewed. The grain may be because under exposure then scanning to correct.

The vig. Is not from the lens, it's how the sky was at that late/early hour. Hasselblad wides vig just the same.

pentaxuser · Mar 14, 2015

I don't think that Portra has an anti-vignetting ingredient built into it compared to that delinquent Ektar .
I don't think the camera knows the difference between the two films either. So if the camera was set-up the same for both films then doesn't it have to be a scanning issue?

The list of camera and film problems have been increasing in the last few months but interestingly the common factor seem to be scanning.

pentaxuser

vpwphoto · Mar 14, 2015

I looked again ok the lens is doing the corner thing... stopping down will help.. The tme of day did accentuate it.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 14, 2015

I have Ansel Adams Death Valley Photograph book and same color pallette with the first picture but the ground which was closer to the camera was so different from that Ansel photos. Its seems to my eye , there are lots of quality issue with the design of the lens , ground looks like camera shaked , infinity focus quality is lack at the ground. I dont think lens would act different at f:22 , there is too much aberrations

gone · Mar 14, 2015

I agree, the grain is an exposure issue, and the vignetting is light falloff. Stop the lens way down and put it on a tripod for those low light shots to eliminate the falloff.

How can I improve? (GW690)

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency