[Nuff]

The difference is the light, overcast vs sunny. Film can't fix that.

Swift, you istigated me to try the Ektar film, but my results haven't been so brilliant:





Exposure error on my side or bad processing/print/scan?

This one is a little better:



I also like this one where I was focusing on the reflex on the glass:



I'm not that crazy about this landscape too...



How do you process this film if I may ask?

[Cuthbert]

The difference is the light, overcast vs sunny. Film can't fix that.

If you notice the shadow of the car you'll realise it was a very sunny day in certain moment, the more light it was the worst it became.

[Swift1]

Swift, you istigated me to try the Ektar film, but my results haven't been so brilliant:


Exposure error on my side or bad processing/print/scan?

This one is a little better:



I also like this one where I was focusing on the reflex on the glass:



I'm not that crazy about this landscape too...



How do you process this film if I may ask?

These all look like classic lab scans, possibly a Fuji or Noritsu minlab scan. I'm guessing you didn't scan them?
It's actually very difficult (nearly impossible IMO)to judge exposure errors from a scan of C-41, especially Ektar. Over 1 stop of underexposure might start showing itself, but overexposure won't really show in a scan.
Typically, if your scan looks overexposed, it's just a bad scan.

Here's a comparison I did awhile ago. The top is a minilab scan of Fujicolor 200, the bottom image is the same negative scanned on my Epson V500 using Epson Scan and the software's auto mode. I scanned that 2 years ago. I'm certain I could get better results now, but even that is much better than the minilab scan.



If you really want to realize the potential of ynegatives, it's worth doing your own scanning.

[Cuthbert]

actually at the moment I working far away from home so I can't get all the gear to print and scan the negatives, I usually use Boots (that's a chain of pharmacies in the UK), and I've been moderately happy with the results...at least the London lab. Now I moved to another place and it appears the local Boots lab is worse..mor I forgot how to take good pics.<br />
<br />
For the record I've used the Nikon F2AS for these pics, and th Canon F-1N for the other Portra shots. Both are bad...this level of badness:

[rob1234]

Couple more, Z-1P, Agfa Color Plus 200:

[Jacquot]

These all look like classic lab scans, possibly a Fuji or Noritsu minlab scan. I'm guessing you didn't scan them?
It's actually very difficult (nearly impossible IMO)to judge exposure errors from a scan of C-41, especially Ektar. Over 1 stop of underexposure might start showing itself, but overexposure won't really show in a scan.
Typically, if your scan looks overexposed, it's just a bad scan.

Here's a comparison I did awhile ago. The top is a minilab scan of Fujicolor 200, the bottom image is the same negative scanned on my Epson V500 using Epson Scan and the software's auto mode. I scanned that 2 years ago. I'm certain I could get better results now, but even that is much better than the minilab scan.



If you really want to realize the potential of ynegatives, it's worth doing your own scanning.

Useful comparison Colton. Yours is much better.

[Swift1]

actually at the moment I working far away from home so I can't get all the gear to print and scan the negatives, I usually use Boots (that's a chain of pharmacies in the UK), and I've been moderately happy with the results...at least the London lab. Now I moved to another place and it appears the local Boots lab is worse..mor I forgot how to take good pics.<br />
<br />
For the record I've used the Nikon F2AS for these pics, and th Canon F-1N for the other Portra shots. Both are bad...this level of badness:

This looks okay to me, except for maybe too much contrast.

---------- Post added 09-22-2014 at 03:08 PM ----------

Just scanned this one,

Zenza Bronica EC
Nikkor-P 75/2.8
FujiPRO 160NS
Epson V500

[Colorado CJ]

Here's a photo I just finished. This was taken last weekend while out hiking in the Indian Peaks Wilderness of Northern Colorado.

Taken with my Zone VI 4x5 large format camera and Nikkor 180mm F5.6 lens. Shot on Fomapan 200 rated at 120 using a red 25A filter and processed in HC-110 dilution H for 8.5 minutes.

[baro-nite]

From my first-ever roll of 120, in my newly-acquired Pentax 645n:



FA35/3.5, 2-stop hard GND. Colors look kind of outrageous but this is actually a straightforward scan (v700) with fairly mild PP applied (altered the color balance between sky and foreground and applied a little of LightZone's ReLight). I think it was simply the right kind of light to bring out Ektar's natural punchiness.

[ChristianRock]

That looks great, baro-nite. Rookie's luck on that light? Can't wait to see what else you come up with

[ivanvernon]

Pentax MZ-S and Pentax D FA 50 f 2.8 macro lens with Kodak Gold 400 ASA. Taken in A/V mode at fd 2.8 and 1/160 shutter speed.

[Jonathan Mac]

I found a burned-out car on my travels so stopped to take some shots. All on expired Kodak Gold 200 in an MZ-5N with the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DF. The first one was wide open, and most of the others very close to wide open.


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 035a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 033a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 032a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 036a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr

[Swift1]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[SpartanD63]

Some shots from a recent senior photo shoot of my girlfriend for practice. All shot on Portra 160 @100 with the Mamiya 645 Pro TL and either the 80mm/2.8 or the 150mm/3.5











This is the one I'm most unsure of. I like the composition, but the lighting seems off. (And of course, last frame of the roll and my Polaroid back was jammed, so no second take)
I had the flash directly opposite the sun for this one. I think moving my fill flash around a bit more in front of her and boosting its power a stop while dropping the ambient a stop would have helped (though the 1/60th sync of the Mamiya didn't help with the ambient...)
I also ran into issues snaking the cable up and around the treehouse to do it! (Note: buy radio triggers)

Any feedback would be appreciated!

[baro-nite]

This is the one I'm most unsure of. I like the composition, but the lighting seems off.

The lighting is unusual, certainly, but distinctive and I think it works. The fill mimics the sun reflecting off a wall or window and feels realistic. What I don't care for is the railing behind the subject—too strong a feature in this arrangement. A feature like that can work if it's the entire background, or if it is juxtaposed with the subject, but here it's emerging from her head.