How can I improve? (GW690)

Getting the exposure correct is more important than the scanner.

Hatchetman said:

Getting the exposure correct is more important than the scanner.

Click to expand...

Mind boggling

marton said:

Mind boggling

Click to expand...

Marton, I am very curious what your thoughts are on this aspect of the discussion.

I have come to the conclusion that my exposures have a lot to do with this, as I can see a pattern in those that are properly exposed scanning wonderfully. For example, I shot Velvia 50 at ISO 40, and noticed much better results. My under-exposure is adding granularity that I do not want.

On the other hand, I use a Canon 9000F. If you feel like we are risking our APUG cred, I am happy to private message about this if you are, but I understood that was a good scanner when I got it. I know there are far better out there, but far worse as well. I came from an Epson V500 and always had pleasing results. Whether or not they compare to drum scanning is quite obviously a 'no', but I am usually happy with the results, with the exception of some blotchy areas sometimes.

LMNOP said:

Marton, I am very curious what your thoughts are on this aspect of the discussion.

I have come to the conclusion that my exposures have a lot to do with this, as I can see a pattern in those that are properly exposed scanning wonderfully. For example, I shot Velvia 50 at ISO 40, and noticed much better results. My under-exposure is adding granularity that I do not want.

On the other hand, I use a Canon 9000F. If you feel like we are risking our APUG cred, I am happy to private message about this if you are, but I understood that was a good scanner when I got it. I know there are far better out there, but far worse as well. I came from an Epson V500 and always had pleasing results. Whether or not they compare to drum scanning is quite obviously a 'no', but I am usually happy with the results, with the exception of some blotchy areas sometimes.

Click to expand...

Exposure of course, no doubt. It's understood.

I was making another point however. And that point being the (accursed) s@a$n*r as the (for me) second last link in the production chain. Final link for me is Photoshop, but for others the accursed thing is the final. Note that I'm trying to avoid using the S word. As far as I know the best #%^&* for medium format, affordable ^&*$# that is, is the Nikon 9000. And that's what I was referring to when I suggested that guys who don't have access to a color lab, myself included, should be looking at using. If there is money to burn, there are better alternatives.

The GW 690 doesn't have light fall off, only the GSW 690. Both images are underexposed. The film-to-byte-converter is not a dedicated film-to-byte-converter. For film processing with extreme situations it is kind of lousy. I can't comment on the Ektar, because I'm only using Fuji Pro 160NS and 400H with superb results.

Try using a tripod, a light meter and a cable release in these situations. Bad or wrong exposure ruins every image, be it slide or negative film.

A sample with a Fuji GW690 III, Gossen Profisix and a Fuji Pro 400H film, film-to-byte-converter Nikon LS 9000: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/photofab/classico.jpg

toyotadesigner said:

The GW 690 doesn't have light fall off, only the GSW 690. Both images are underexposed. The film-to-byte-converter is not a dedicated film-to-byte-converter. For film processing with extreme situations it is kind of lousy. I can't comment on the Ektar, because I'm only using Fuji Pro 160NS and 400H with superb results.

Try using a tripod, a light meter and a cable release in these situations. Bad or wrong exposure ruins every image, be it slide or negative film.

A sample with a Fuji GW690 III, Gossen Profisix and a Fuji Pro 400H film, film-to-byte-converter Nikon LS 9000: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/photofab/classico.jpg

Click to expand...

That is a beautiful image! It has that classic 400H look, which I love on night tones.

I am currently looking at some B&W negs from my 690 and I cannot believe my eyes. Wonderful results, I have no doubt this camera works properly, I just have to stick with films I know, honestly Portra 400 and Tri-X 400 never fail me.

Let's get back to the basics. The graininess is not the fault of the film. Next, the corner falloff is due to the lens itself and is typical of what
you'd get when using a wide angle lens with a film that has a bit more contrast than Portra. You'd have the same issue with transparency film, only worse. The excessive blue is simply due to the fact that you haven't corrected the film for an usually high color temperature. Ektar is not artificially warmed like those more common color neg films engineered for skintones. Again, it' more like a chrome, and if you want a more realistic look you need to match the film to the Kelvin color temperature of the scene. I always carry 81A and 81C warming filters with me when shooting Ektar, the 81A for overcast situations which are mildly blue, the 81C for shooting under deep blue skies which affect foreground colors. It also helps to have a light pink Skylight filter for minor situations. Ektar will give wonderful results if you understand it. It's a color neg film with power steering. But if you don't want the hassle, either flavor of Portra might be more practical.

The rule against scanner talk is not arbitrary. It gets to the very definition of what apug.org is about.

But there is no need to go to dpug. Apug has a special user group dedicated to scanning talk.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I've precisely enlarged 6x7 Ektar to 20x24 print size and the grain is barely perceptible anywhere. It's actually quite a bit finer than any
chrome film I can think of, and I think I've used all the pro versions at one point or another, and it's unquestionably finer than any of the
Portra films. Underexposure will affect color balance, but if "graininess" is your problem, it's gotta relate to the scanning protocol, not the film itself.

Agree with Drew. It looks like a scan problem for sure.