How can I improve? (GW690)

[marton]

Gee those are very strange looking. Bad color, unattractive overly grainy, etc. That's a tough one to work out. I'd approach these problems with shooting different films using the same settings all throughout your process. It's possible that it's not just a scanning issue but you'd be able to eliminate it at least. All the best with it.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Just re-read the beginning. The second shot- 1/500 @f/8-11? Way underesposed for sunset. 3 stops or more. So you will get grain, and you will get scanner noise. This will also accentuate the natural fall-off of any lens as edges drop below any registration value at all.

The moon shot could have something similar going on, underexposure.

Do you use a meter?

 

[250swb]

I didn't think we were supposed to talk about scanners in APUG? But as you guy's seem to be getting away with it I'll just point out that the scanner is a low tech thing with crappy software, and if you try too hard the whole job will get more complicated than necessary. Try for a low contrast scan (it will look horrible, but it will contain all possible information), simply ensuring your black and white points aren't clipping any information. Then in Photoshop/Lightroom adjust the low contrast scan and even if you only hit the 'Auto' buttons the vastly superior software will get you close to what you want. For example simply hitting the 'Auto Colour' button in Photoshop pretty well automatically gets rid of the colour balance problem in the example shown.

Steve

 

[LMNOP]

Just re-read the beginning. The second shot- 1/500 @f/8-11? Way underesposed for sunset. 3 stops or more. So you will get grain, and you will get scanner noise. This will also accentuate the natural fall-off of any lens as edges drop below any registration value at all.

The moon shot could have something similar going on, underexposure.

Do you use a meter?

I think this may be the root of the issue. I was shooting wide open because it was handheld and dark.

 

[LMNOP]

I didn't think we were supposed to talk about scanners in APUG? But as you guy's seem to be getting away with it I'll just point out that the scanner is a low tech thing with crappy software, and if you try too hard the whole job will get more complicated than necessary. Try for a low contrast scan (it will look horrible, but it will contain all possible information), simply ensuring your black and white points aren't clipping any information. Then in Photoshop/Lightroom adjust the low contrast scan and even if you only hit the 'Auto' buttons the vastly superior software will get you close to what you want. For example simply hitting the 'Auto Colour' button in Photoshop pretty well automatically gets rid of the colour balance problem in the example shown.

Steve

I think the root of this issue is exposure, and that is what I've come here for. Scanning is part of the conversation, I won't avoid the subject of how these images magically appeared on a computer screen, but I do not mean to be disrespectful of that APUG rule, no matter how much I don't agree with the logic.

 

[gzinsel]

I have the gwIII f/3.5 90mm. When making an exposure wide open it does vignette. I think around 5.6 it is not noticeable to my eyes. in most instances, i use F/11-22 for my exposures. If I am using slow speed film, obviously its on a tripod. It is my belief that this camera is at its best, using this range of F stops. I still believe that making c-prints by color correcting with your critical eye, and processing RA4 is best. Many issues, OR The issue- will become very obvious, and the self imposed digital issue(s) will go away.

In terms of your digital ?'s, There are many people far more experienced with The Big "D" (digital) than I, so i yield to the speaker, the floor, etc. . . . . the remainder of my time.

 

[LMNOP]

I have the gwIII f/3.5 90mm. When making an exposure wide open it does vignette. I think around 5.6 it is not noticeable to my eyes. in most instances, i use F/11-22 for my exposures. If I am using slow speed film, obviously its on a tripod. It is my belief that this camera is at its best, using this range of F stops. I still believe that making c-prints by color correcting with your critical eye, and processing RA4 is best. Many issues, OR The issue- will become very obvious, and the self imposed digital issue(s) will go away.

In terms of your digital ?'s, There are many people far more experienced with The Big "D" (digital) than I, so i yield to the speaker, the floor, etc. . . . . the remainder of my time.

Thank you. This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I am new to this camera and considering it was -25 degrees that day, I left my tripod in the car. I am new to landscapes, and I am learning that I have to carry more gear (tripod) in order to produce results in line with what my eye is seeing.

 

[ic-racer]

http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php

 

[eng1er]

I didn't think we were supposed to talk about scanners in APUG? But as you guy's seem to be getting away with it I'll just point out that the scanner is a low tech thing with crappy software, and if you try too hard the whole job will get more complicated than necessary. Try for a low contrast scan (it will look horrible, but it will contain all possible information), simply ensuring your black and white points aren't clipping any information. Then in Photoshop/Lightroom adjust the low contrast scan and even if you only hit the 'Auto' buttons the vastly superior software will get you close to what you want. For example simply hitting the 'Auto Colour' button in Photoshop pretty well automatically gets rid of the colour balance problem in the example shown.

Steve

As any photograph that appears on apug for troubleshooting or critique must be scanned, it is obviously sometimes necessary to discuss potential deficiencies in that process in order to rule them out and get to the photochemical processes that are germane to this forum. If we're prohibited from doing that because of some arbitrary hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil, see-no-evil directive then we've really hamstrung ourselves. I get the desire to keep the discussion "pure" as a means of maintaining the quality of this resource, but unless we're going to mail prints to every member for review, we may need to accept the fact that electronic imaging sometimes plays a role in what we do here.

 

[gzinsel]

ya thanks LMNOP. for others who are reading or will read- This camera is NOT, nor can it be it be, All things to all people for all occasions. it is very good for what it does. "what it does". . . . you ask? a very simple camera to operate, best shots are landscapes, cityscapes. Best aperture are 16 and 22, having most things in focus. depending on film speed, you may have to use a tripod. For roll film, this camera makes excellent negatives for 11x14 and 16x20 enlargements. beyond that, you should consider 5x4 LF. Actually this camera for the price, fits 75%- 90% occasions at a great price. Remember people: its not perfect, its not a "system camera". On a separate note: for the amount of people who use MF for color neg and color trans., it really saddens me to hear and read that you, ( by choice or by necessity) have to "scan". I wish there was more community darkrooms- RA-4 processors and color heads. so people wouldn't have to "slum it" . I really wish there was a way to finance color community photo work.

 

[LMNOP]

As any photograph that appears on apug for troubleshooting or critique must be scanned, it is obviously sometimes necessary to discuss potential deficiencies in that process in order to rule them out and get to the photochemical processes that are germane to this forum. If we're prohibited from doing that because of some arbitrary hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil, see-no-evil directive then we've really hamstrung ourselves. I get the desire to keep the discussion "pure" as a means of maintaining the quality of this resource, but unless we're going to mail prints to every member for review, we may need to accept the fact that electronic imaging sometimes plays a role in what we do here.

This was extremely well-said and I truly appreciate you speaking up. I could not put this into words, but have felt a bit ambushed by the "he mentioned a scanner" witch hunt. I enjoy sharing my photographs online, it connects me to a large community of other film photographers and allows me to share my work with the world, as well as keep a digital copy of the work. I cannot imagine this life that some on here live, making prints of their work, filing them away somewhere, and moving on. I cannot afford the resources to make prints of any kind outside of ordering digital prints, which requires scanning first. I wish, so badly, that this was like high school, when I had my own little darkroom at the alternative school I attended. I would shoot B&W and make huge prints, it'd be great. Someday I will return to such a routine, with a bigger living space or local studio, perhaps. In the meantime, I will scan all of my work, and would continue to do so even if I had the world's greatest darkroom. I work in the computer industry, for crying out loud.

 

[LMNOP]

ya thanks LMNOP. for others who are reading or will read- This camera is NOT, nor can it be it be, All things to all people for all occasions. it is very good for what it does. "what it does". . . . you ask? a very simple camera to operate, best shots are landscapes, cityscapes. Best aperture are 16 and 22, having most things in focus. depending on film speed, you may have to use a tripod. For roll film, this camera makes excellent negatives for 11x14 and 16x20 enlargements. beyond that, you should consider 5x4 LF. Actually this camera for the price, fits 75%- 90% occasions at a great price. Remember people: its not perfect, its not a "system camera". On a separate note: for the amount of people who use MF for color neg and color trans., it really saddens me to hear and read that you, ( by choice or by necessity) have to "scan". I wish there was more community darkrooms- RA-4 processors and color heads. so people wouldn't have to "slum it" . I really wish there was a way to finance color community photo work.

Thank you. I feel a bit foolish having put my worst exposures up on this forum, only to hear confirmation that I'm just not using this camera correctly. This is my 3rd roll, and I believe you said it best. This is not a system camera. My RZ has been able to deliver exactly what I want, with a learning curve, but overall I can achieve much more. I think a super wide lens for the RZ is my next step, instead of carrying the GW with me everywhere. It truly isn't that versatile, but when it works, it works. I have some great exposures, I got lucky, and I shot a roll of Tri-X this week, looking forward to seeing those results.

 

[Moopheus]

I get the desire to keep the discussion "pure" as a means of maintaining the quality of this resource, but unless we're going to mail prints to every member for review, we may need to accept the fact that electronic imaging sometimes plays a role in what we do here.

Yes, and DPUG was started specifically to fill that gap. I guess that hasn't worked out as well as could be. Maybe it should be a subforum of the main site the way it used to be.

 

[LMNOP]

Yes, and DPUG was started specifically to fill that gap. I guess that hasn't worked out as well as could be. Maybe it should be a subforum of the main site the way it used to be.

I don't have a historical context of this filing system, I've only been contributing to this form for less than a year, but from an outsider's perspective, and a passionate film shooter, it is disappointing and a bit backwards to see how this has been sorted. DPUG is a ghost town, to quote another user above. As I said, I received no moderator approval for over a week, tried again, same result (or lack there of.) If APUG wants to maintain and loyal and active following, not to mention paid subscriptions, they have to be open to adapt and accommodate a MILDLY different type of hybrid photographer. I don't even OWN a digital camera, aside from the one built into my phone, and I live and breath film photography, always have. The pursuit to improve, and produce higher quality results, is purely self driven and self guided. I don't understand the fact that scanning, such a major element of what I do, yet does not change the analog nature of my hobby, should alter my status as an Analog Photographer.

To me, it seems like owning a digital light meter is equally offensive, no? That is not an analog device, by any means.

I realize this is not the place for my soapboxing, and I also appreciate that Moopheus made this suggestion, I think a subform within APUG is a great idea. I don't even want to participate in a forum named DPUG, as I am not a digital photographer.

 

[eng1er]

Yes, and DPUG was started specifically to fill that gap. I guess that hasn't worked out as well as could be. Maybe it should be a subforum of the main site the way it used to be.

So before any photograph is posted to apug for troubleshooting, it should be posted to dpug so that it can be vetted and cleared of any scanning deficiencies, then posted here to spare anyone from seeing the word "scanner?" The OP is asking for help shooting film with a film camera. Seems like apug is the appropriate forum...

 

[pschwart]

I have been a member of both APUG and DPUG (hybridphoto.com) for many years. I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of discussing scanning and other digital technologies on APUG but I will say that there are DPUG members with deep analog experience who could have examined the complete workflow, including the scanning, and effectively triaged this without suggesting the OP was "slumming."

 

[vpwphoto]

Eng1er. + 1. If it is born on film it's apug! If it's a digital neg dpug etc. scanner scanner scanner. For the record everything in my apug gallery was film to paper then print photographed with leaf Hasselblad . Perhaps folk not regularly making prints or have ever made prints have little idea what qualities a properly exposed and developed negative should look like and behave in the darkroom as opposed to how it comes out scanned!

 

[vpwphoto]

^^^^^ actually I think the Minolta " digital " readout meters tha I have used since the 1980s simply take the analog data and display it in digital form. Let's be nice. I said once it is my opinion that not showing any examples of work here if you are discussing and commenting on others troubles and issues is kinda silly to me. Looking at what ever portfolio someone offers says a lot about how much weight you can take their suggestions for your situation. This is my opinion, I am not singling anyone out or stroking my ego. I often say I don't compete in sports but in photography I am a formidable appoint.

 

[vpwphoto]

Thank you. I feel a bit foolish having put my worst exposures up on this forum, only to hear confirmation that I'm just not using this camera correctly. This is my 3rd roll, and I believe you said it best. This is not a system camera. My RZ has been able to deliver exactly what I want, with a learning curve, but overall I can achieve much more. I think a super wide lens for the RZ is my next step, instead of carrying the GW with me everywhere. It truly isn't that versatile, but when it works, it works. I have some great exposures, I got lucky, and I shot a roll of Tri-X this week, looking forward to seeing those results.

Not in the least foolish!!!! You and others have learned!! See you around, keep working on it. Don't use som many films, choose one, choose one process method, and one meter, and one camera, get to know how these things work together, then explore more. Get a good basic photography book about exposure film and the camera, read it and re read it. It will start to become absolutely 2nd nature. Cheers!

 

[MattKing]

Thank you. I feel a bit foolish having put my worst exposures up on this forum, only to hear confirmation that I'm just not using this camera correctly. This is my 3rd roll, and I believe you said it best. This is not a system camera. My RZ has been able to deliver exactly what I want, with a learning curve, but overall I can achieve much more. I think a super wide lens for the RZ is my next step, instead of carrying the GW with me everywhere. It truly isn't that versatile, but when it works, it works. I have some great exposures, I got lucky, and I shot a roll of Tri-X this week, looking forward to seeing those results.

I wish my "worst" exposures were half that good!

No need to feel foolish - by sharing you have just accelerated your learning experience, and given us who don't have one of these cameras (but would like one) the chance to learn vicariously.

And on the "digital" issues, no one here on APUG is going to be mad if you inadvertently bring some scanning issues on to the table. It is just that the site chooses not to deal with the detailed steps needed to solve those issues. Recognizing an issue as being scanning related is always okay here.

On carpentry sites, do people get upset because people are asked to take plumbing issues to the plumbing sites?

 

[LMNOP]

I wish my "worst" exposures were half that good!

No need to feel foolish - by sharing you have just accelerated your learning experience, and given us who don't have one of these cameras (but would like one) the chance to learn vicariously.

And on the "digital" issues, no one here on APUG is going to be mad if you inadvertently bring some scanning issues on to the table. It is just that the site chooses not to deal with the detailed steps needed to solve those issues. Recognizing an issue as being scanning related is always okay here.

On carpentry sites, do people get upset because people are asked to take plumbing issues to the plumbing sites?

Thanks Matt, I appreciate the input. I'd like to add that I have had some beautiful exposures with this camera, even within those first 3 trial rolls. I will say, learning to tame this GW will take more rolls, time, and failure. I have heard it is no good for portraits, but I disagree. Yes, you're dealing with a wide angle perspective, but the amount of surrounding atmosphere you get really tells a story, and captures the mood of the moment. This exposure I'm display, I consider a success, not as sharp as I'd like, but the color matching was perfect, same setup. Shot with Portra 800.

 

[Fixcinater]

Is the lens clean and free from haze/fungus/internal issues? That last shot looks subpar around her hands almost like a hazy lens would show flare/glare/glow or whatever you want to call it. Not to make you worry but I would take another look at it up close and personal with an LED pen light and see if there is anything going on internally.

As for the digitizing of negs, check out the "I Shoot Film" group on Flickr, they talk about that a lot and seem to be pretty good about helping each other.

 

[TimVermont]

There's snow in the scene, you are in Vermont and you've just stepped into a warm coffee house from the cold. Condensation on the lens will cause the diffusion shown in the attached image. Put the dry, cold camera in a plastic bag before going into a warm moist environment. Let it warm up in the bag to avoid condensation on and _in_ the camera.

 

[gzinsel]

not to keep pounding the same note, but. . . . . . in portraiture, The "average" or "most people" like to use a longer lens, to isolate subject by using a large aperture, and "fill" most of the frame! this camera does not do this well!!!!! particularly using f/3.5, or 4 (vinetting occurs) HOWEVER, if you compose with a subject in a scene, then it seems to work better. Like I said, this camera is no system camera.
What I use this camera for is to : use it for test runs, test shoots out in the field, before I shoot 4x5. With the gw69III, I can get 8 shoots of the scene, shoot within minutes. I expose/dev. and review images printed. to see if, there is something "there" to move forward with. I.e. 4x5.( is the time of day right, season right, exposure, etc, , ,) with one roll(8 shots) I can vacillate. try a few compositions out,, before 4x5. I think there is a great dialogue to be had with this method. Many things I shot do not move. day in/day out, week in/ week out. season in/season out.

 

[marton]

I don't care if the word scanner is sacrilegious here, because for those of us that have no access to a color lab, and have to scan, it's a fact of life. Too bad. I think for your images to reach best quality, and mine of course, scanner quality must be considered. All sorts of bad things happen to photos when the scanner is sub par. Save up and get the best you can afford.