Here's a dumb Superia 400 snapshit
The bottom is the lab scan, the top is how I expected it to look and how I treat it in post
What's going on here? Did I overexpose the shot?
Did the lab turn the brightness and change the tint too much during scanning?
Which one would you say is a better look?
Ignore that it's a dumb snapshit, it was just the most obvious example I could find
>>3061386
>Ignore that it's a dumb snapshit, it was just the most obvious example I could find
kek
>>3061389
I mean the most obvious example of the difference between the lab scans and what I would expect to be proper exposure
>>3061386
Appears she goes commando. Icky
How much did you pay for it?
>>3061415
Like 7 bucks per roll (developing and scanning)
>>3061386
Tops too yellow, should be slightly green.
Bottom is too blue. for superia atleast.
Not overexposed.
I guess you could say that film isn't all it's .. cracked up to be..
>>3061386
I just finished my first roll too.
I posted in the /fgt/ thread too, but every single one of my development scans seem blown out as fuck like yours.
I am thinking it is just an unfortunate side effect of the automated scanning.
I will take proper DSLR scans when my film holder arrives in a week or so.
>>3061393
Her jeans probably have a snail trail.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-2000 Camera Software FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-7.7-0J-060 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2017:04:16 16:26:13 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1840 Image Height 1232
>>3061386
pretty sure the labs that are offering cheap develop+scan services just run their shit on autopilot. you see the same sort of stuff on home scanners if you leave yours on auto, it'll do shit like "backlight correction" that's only actually necessary if you have old, faded negs sitting in a box somewhere or you have no intention of doing PP, which I guess is something they won't take for granted.
>>3061386
Why did you expect it to look like it had an Instagram filter? Bottom is much better.
>>3061386
Your white balance isn't accurate. Just look at the white paint and bucket.
>>3061563
>>3061421
Meanwhile in germany with its top quality scans which I paid like 5.50 for (plus developing and printing tho)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software CEWE / IMAGE CD Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top
>>3061563
Yep basically this
>>3061703
Jealous, most of mine just look blow out.
Some of them look good but it depends entirely on luck I guess. I wonder if they're even looking at anything or just leaving the scanner on auto
If I don't have any skies in the pic (like pic related) then the scans are passable
Skies are all blown out to full white
>>3061708
I'm kidding I hate these scans I don't think they look good at all
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software CEWE / IMAGE CD Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Bottom, Right-Hand
>>3061709
Lol that one actually looks worse than mine
Mine are hit and miss honestly. I have no idea if any lab techs are actually looking at things or if they leave everything on auto
I'd honestly prefer it they just got a faithful negative scan and then I'd correct things if I felt like it
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2716 Image Height 1830 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>3061563
>Her jeans probably have a snail trail.
hot
>>3061386
Lab scans are shit, it's little more than a shitty point and shoot on auto mode.
Your original picture should have just been scanned at a lower exposure, get a dslr scan rig, or live with shit scans.
>>3061711
What film were used here ? Superia ?
>>3061711
wtf this is amazing?
>>3062163
bump
>>3061562
kill yourself, my man
>>3061711
Don't get lab scans unless you're willing to pay for expensive drum scanning. You're just wasting your money as is.
>>3063256
>https://instagram.com/p/BTKhADqA_57
I think you edit your photos too flat.
Dumping my Superia 400 pics taken with a Nikkormat EL. Found out after this roll that it has crazy light leaks which is a bummer since I've got a roll of Portra 160 in it which is 2-frames-deep :(
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows) Photographer Camden Fenton Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2017:04:17 14:42:14 Color Space Information sRGB
>>3064792
Ignore the res on that last one
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows) Photographer Camden Fenton Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2017:04:27 20:21:50 Color Space Information sRGB
>>3064794
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows) Photographer Camden Fenton Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2017:04:27 20:24:21 Color Space Information sRGB