Canonet QL17 GIII

File: 6.jpg (846KB, 1000x759px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1000x759px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:32

File: 5.jpg (1MB, 1000x757px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x757px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:35

File: 4.jpg (1MB, 1000x759px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x759px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:39

File: 3.jpg (582KB, 607x800px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 607x800px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:44

File: 2.jpg (892KB, 1000x760px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 1000x760px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:49

File: 1.jpg (582KB, 607x800px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 607x800px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:54

File: 8.jpg (822KB, 1000x759px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1000x759px

last one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2016:06:02 20:26:12

>muh ektar
*tips magentas*
*tips bluey greens*

now srs, i think you overexposed the whole lot. when you overexpose ektar, weird things happen. faulty meter? i dont like the emulsion too much, in fact might be one of my least favorites ever.

about the photos, the set is formulaic and has no charm, its like a robot took them based in some algorythm. try to put some vision into your photo, even if its about fucking cows.

>>2853834
What is even going on with the colors in this one?

These look really bad for Ektar, are these lab scans?

>>2853896

looks like overexposed slide film. which is weird, because its color neg hence theoretically more headroom, but its been said ektar has this narrow DR.

>>2853899
i got these scanned at a shop yes

i will say im surprised the highlights havent retained as much detail as is claimed for ektar. also are these all really that over-exposed? are you viewing these on an ips panel?

>>2853892
wow awesome ur clever

kys.

>>2853903

take or leave it, little cunt.

>>2853900
probably a bad scan then
>>2853902
>i got these scanned at a shop yes
Yup, confirmed for shitscans.

File: ektar.jpg (671KB, 634x1000px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 634x1000px

>>2853902
I shot 35mm ektar at 200 and still got stuff blowing out when it was correctly exposed. Colour negative film gets overhyped a lot, here;s what my ektar looked like when I scanned it myself

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2103
Image Height	3319
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:06:02 14:57:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	634
Image Height	1000

File: 23599444440_231c72a8a3_b.jpg (204KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x672px

>>2853919
I've found that dslr scanning retains the dynamic range of negative film a lot better than a normal scanner does.

This is a shitty shot I took back in high school that I decided to re-scan years later. The frame was almost completely black even when put under a backlight, but I was surprised that I was able to resolve detail out of something really badly overexposed.
c-41 might not have as much latitude as black and white film, but it still should hold highlights pretty well. Some of that probably depends on how good your scanner is, too.

File: 2015-05-9-8493-Ektar100-4.jpg (982KB, 1500x982px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 1500x982px

Good job OP... on wasting a roll of Ektar. You might want to get your camera checked, not only are the pictures awful, but I'd say most of them are slightly out of focus. That, or the scans really are that awful. Which they are.

Also the """""""lab""""""" you went to fucking murdered the colour correction. DIY or find some place that is competent.

>>2853892
Just shit scans m8. I overexpose all my Ektar by 1-2 stops (shadows at -1) and it's fine. I'll double down on the latitude; it's not Portra-tier. Still good though.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	664
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:02 11:21:31
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Rektar.jpg (270KB, 1185x800px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1185x800px

>>2853919
I just vaguely estimated an exposure for this whole roll and it came out fine.
I think you guys must just suck at scanning and colour correction.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment
Projection	Rectilinear (0)
FOV	9 x 6
Ev	13.59
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2854086
Not OP. Yours is shit also, though. Be under no illusion.
Like you should kill yourself, though, not him.

File: Film1067_18a.jpg (691KB, 1000x638px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1000x638px

I only shot 1 roll of Ektar but I really liked the pinks. Are they usually that nice?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:19 19:28:56
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2853989
i hear its difficult doing colour correction with dslr scans? i might buy a macro adapter and try it myself though.

>>2854086
i dont see how your photo is any more in focus than mine.

File: Film1067_33a.jpg (919KB, 1000x696px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1000x696px

>>2854208

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:19 19:29:03
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Film1067_14a.jpg (585KB, 663x1000px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 663x1000px

>>2854212

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:19 19:29:10
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2854086
>wasting a roll of Ektar
You really should attach a photo that is not complete garbage when writing shit like this. Get your eyes checked as the attached photo is not only boring as fuck, but also badly composed and exposed

>>2854296
It's not a good photo, it's supposed to show what greens and reds look like under direct winter sunlight. Could be a tad greener though. It's the only photo I have where I'm sure I did overexposure.

>>2854210
These seem soft as fuck. My picture's soft as fuck because I'm using a reversed lens to scan with. It could be that the lab scans are concealing any sort of sharpness to those images. tfw no money for a macro.
>>2853834
>>2853833
>>2853828
>>2853827

>>2854208
L u s h
u
s
h

>>2854308
i might buy a macro adaptor and try cam scanning myself. do you have any tips for editing colour negatives?

>>2854325
http://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/06/02/scanning-and-editing-color-negative-film

Build a shoot through box illuminated by flash with plenty of diffusion, a way to keep the film flat, and to isolate the front of the film from ambient light. And don't pretend it's a fast method if you don't have it down pat.

>>2854210
It can be difficult to color correct at first, but once you do it a few times it's not too bad. You can also save color profiles so that when you shoot the same type of film again it's easy to correct.

>>2854208
this is nice