Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

mrNewt · 01-24-2014, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

Thanks, I don't have a scanner but there are labs that digitize the negatives for cheap....

All you needs is your camera

How to Scan Film Negatives with a DSLR

For "higher" resolution you can take multiple pictures of the negative slide and merge them in PP.

This is interesting to watch as well:

You Tube

Last edited by mrNewt; 01-24-2014 at 12:29 PM.

MysteryOnion · 01-24-2014, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

came out really opaque and dull,

Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper.

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

set the shutter to 125 since the camera

Sorry... on the ME it is 100

JuanEstrada · 01-24-2014, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by MysteryOnion

Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper.

Sorry... on the ME it is 100

Sure, I will post them tomorrow!

Thank you all!

JuanEstrada · 01-28-2014, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by MysteryOnion

Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper.

Sorry... on the ME it is 100

Hi again... So, I took the cam to a guy in my citys downtown, and he charged me about U$20 to fix the cam. He said that the light meter was reading more light than it was supposed to, so it let less light to enter... Also, he told me to use the cam only between 10 am and 4 pm because of color temperature.

I read the same source of light with a friends k1000 and they gave me the same diafrag, speed and iso.

I will attach these 2 pics of the negatives you asked for MysteryOnion!

Thank you all,

Last edited by JuanEstrada; 10-16-2015 at 11:38 PM.

MysteryOnion · 01-29-2014, 07:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

He said that the light meter was reading more light than...

That is unusual, but it is a good thing if he compensated it. When you get it back, make sure it is able to work at the extremes of the meter settings... see instruction manual for the limits of the meter. More than likely the meter was ill-adjusted by someone tinkering with it. Still, if it works for 50 to 800 iso/asa speeds... super good!

titrisol · 01-29-2014, 08:37 AM

The beauty of living in Bogota!

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

Hi again... So, I took the cam to a guy in my citys downtown, and he charged me about U$20 to fix the cam. He said that the light meter was reading more light than it was supposed to, so it let less light to enter... Also, he told me to use the cam only between 10 am and 4 pm because of color temperature.

I read the same source of light with a friends k1000 and they gave me the same diafrag, speed and iso.

I will attach these 2 pics of the negatives you asked for MysteryOnion!

Thank you all,

MysteryOnion · 01-29-2014, 11:24 AM

Thanks... so...

... I was curious as to how dense the images were?

They are a little.

Pardon the cropping... and I hoped to have less reflections. It is interesting that the shapes could still be picked up.

So... from my long distance view... you do have good detail, the the variations of the shade were a bit tricky to define.

Underexposure...no... this is an overexposure and slightly it seems at least for these two frames.

Your other frames do look underexposed.

Last edited by MysteryOnion; 01-29-2014 at 11:30 AM.

JuanEstrada · 01-29-2014, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by MysteryOnion

Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper.

Sorry... on the ME it is 100

Originally posted by MysteryOnion

Thanks... so...

... I was curious as to how dense the images were?

They are a little.

Pardon the cropping... and I hoped to have less reflections. It is interesting that the shapes could still be picked up.

So... from my long distance view... you do have good detail, the the variations of the shade were a bit tricky to define.

Underexposure...no... this is an overexposure and slightly it seems at least for these two frames.

Your other frames do look underexposed.

It is very dificult to take a picture of that 6 foot negative... I will try again. I really appreciate it.

titrisol · 01-29-2014, 08:14 PM

Juan,
look at a negative that looks right in the contact sheet, and then look at one that looks dull.
If the one that looks dull is "thin" i.e. more transparent then it is underexposure
If it looks thick i.e. more dense then it is overexposure

If I understand you correctly your camera was underexposing, i.e. the lightmeter was saying there was more light than what there really was.

Originally posted by JuanEstrada

It is very dificult to take a picture of that 6 foot negative... I will try again. I really appreciate it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax ist D dull and distorted color photos	Budgie	Visitors' Center	18	10-09-2013 01:19 PM
Misc Why It Takes Me So Long to Sort Through Pictures	GeoJerry	Post Your Photos!	12	10-30-2012 01:29 PM
Dull colors from Pentax K-5	tblachowicz	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	25	01-03-2012 03:37 AM
No 'manufactured' pictures for me	lesmore49	Photographic Technique	17	05-17-2009 11:20 PM
Pictures color looks dull but not in CS2...Advice?	synnyster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	06-24-2007 07:09 PM

01-24-2014, 12:23 PM	#32
MysteryOnion Giveaway winner! Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: beantown Photos: Albums Posts: 944	Originally posted by JuanEstrada came out really opaque and dull, Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper. Originally posted by JuanEstrada set the shutter to 125 since the camera Sorry... on the ME it is 100

01-24-2014, 10:28 PM	#33
JuanEstrada Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Bogotá, Colombia! Posts: 87 Original Poster	Originally posted by MysteryOnion Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper. Sorry... on the ME it is 100 Sure, I will post them tomorrow! Thank you all!

01-28-2014, 05:41 PM	#34
JuanEstrada Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Bogotá, Colombia! Posts: 87 Original Poster	Originally posted by MysteryOnion Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper. Sorry... on the ME it is 100 Hi again... So, I took the cam to a guy in my citys downtown, and he charged me about U$20 to fix the cam. He said that the light meter was reading more light than it was supposed to, so it let less light to enter... Also, he told me to use the cam only between 10 am and 4 pm because of color temperature. I read the same source of light with a friends k1000 and they gave me the same diafrag, speed and iso. I will attach these 2 pics of the negatives you asked for MysteryOnion! Thank you all, Last edited by JuanEstrada; 10-16-2015 at 11:38 PM.

01-29-2014, 07:55 AM - 1 Like	#35
MysteryOnion Giveaway winner! Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: beantown Photos: Albums Posts: 944	Originally posted by JuanEstrada He said that the light meter was reading more light than... That is unusual, but it is a good thing if he compensated it. When you get it back, make sure it is able to work at the extremes of the meter settings... see instruction manual for the limits of the meter. More than likely the meter was ill-adjusted by someone tinkering with it. Still, if it works for 50 to 800 iso/asa speeds... super good!

01-29-2014, 08:37 AM	#36
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,854	The beauty of living in Bogota! Originally posted by JuanEstrada Hi again... So, I took the cam to a guy in my citys downtown, and he charged me about U$20 to fix the cam. He said that the light meter was reading more light than it was supposed to, so it let less light to enter... Also, he told me to use the cam only between 10 am and 4 pm because of color temperature. I read the same source of light with a friends k1000 and they gave me the same diafrag, speed and iso. I will attach these 2 pics of the negatives you asked for MysteryOnion! Thank you all,

01-29-2014, 11:24 AM	#37
MysteryOnion Giveaway winner! Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: beantown Photos: Albums Posts: 944	Thanks... so... ... I was curious as to how dense the images were? They are a little. Pardon the cropping... and I hoped to have less reflections. It is interesting that the shapes could still be picked up. So... from my long distance view... you do have good detail, the the variations of the shade were a bit tricky to define. Underexposure...no... this is an overexposure and slightly it seems at least for these two frames. Your other frames do look underexposed. Last edited by MysteryOnion; 01-29-2014 at 11:30 AM.

01-29-2014, 05:12 PM	#38
JuanEstrada Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Bogotá, Colombia! Posts: 87 Original Poster	Originally posted by MysteryOnion Could you show the negative that is from proof sheet 4633- frames from around #4 to #12, photograph it on a sheet of white paper. Sorry... on the ME it is 100 Originally posted by MysteryOnion Thanks... so... ... I was curious as to how dense the images were? They are a little. Pardon the cropping... and I hoped to have less reflections. It is interesting that the shapes could still be picked up. So... from my long distance view... you do have good detail, the the variations of the shade were a bit tricky to define. Underexposure...no... this is an overexposure and slightly it seems at least for these two frames. Your other frames do look underexposed. It is very dificult to take a picture of that 6 foot negative... I will try again. I really appreciate it.

01-29-2014, 08:14 PM	#39
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,854	Juan, look at a negative that looks right in the contact sheet, and then look at one that looks dull. If the one that looks dull is "thin" i.e. more transparent then it is underexposure If it looks thick i.e. more dense then it is overexposure If I understand you correctly your camera was underexposing, i.e. the lightmeter was saying there was more light than what there really was. Originally posted by JuanEstrada It is very dificult to take a picture of that 6 foot negative... I will try again. I really appreciate it.

Pentax ME opaque/dull pictures

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!