Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> What's this? |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Remember to check ISO!" Here is another example with the same settings. Bit blurry, but it would have been OK otherwise. Last edited by photowaffle; 8th April 2016 at 08:15 AM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If the other scans of prints are OK and the above one looks much better then I'd be tempted to conclude that either the scanner settings changed or there is a combination of light/ metering/ shutter/aperture that has resulted in the really "foggy " one Mike |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If it is... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with either the camera or the operator except the incorrect film speed bei9ng set and the circumstances/situation where the picture was taken.
I would run another film through set at the correct speed and see what happens. I have a feeling everything will turn out just right. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing wrong with the trees, I'd agree. Can we see how the 400 shot of it looks for comparison?
I may also have misunderstood what you said about the flower bed shot. I thought that was 400 as well but maybe you were demonstrating that this is what a 200 shot looks like If the flower bed was 400 as well and it looks fine then I am flummoxed about why the road and trees scene was as "foggy" as it was Mike |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The trees were not shot at 400 ISO, only 200 ISO. The flowers were however shot at 400 ISO. Flummoxed you be.
|
Tags |
c200, colour, film is not dead |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|