Some pictures from my film era - ME Super, Coolscan 5000 ED

I thought I'd start a separate thread for a few images.

C&C is always welcome, but bear in mind that I'll probably never use the ME Super again!

I post them mostly just for interest. Most of these were taken on the ME Super, using Konica film, and a fairly mediocre super-zoom of the time, the Sigma A 28-200 F4-5.6. It's a 'one-touch' zoom, with one ring for both focusing and zooming. I still have it, so I'll stick it on the front of the K10D sometime, see what it's like on there.

The scans are all taken using Nikon's supplied software, auto-focus and auto-exposure, with the dust removal ('Digital ICE') set to the higher setting ('fine'). I didn't need to do anything to prepare the negatives. Then I've just cropped the frame out, reduced to 800 pixels from 5959, and applied a little USM.


1989

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/134-036.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/134-000-crsmsh.jpg[/IMG]

And especially for George:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/134-001.jpg[/IMG]

More later...

Careful, young man.

G

"My" picture looks rather washed out. Is that a scanning issue, or was it over-exposed?

G

Hmm. Good question.

How can I tell?

Is there a way to manually adjust the light intensity of the scanner?

G

Yes, there are all sorts of things you can adjust, including the exposure of the scan; red, green and blue independently if you want.

This is the histogram from the uploaded JPG:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/134-001-Histogram.jpg[/IMG]

Not sure what, if anything, it proves, though.

I'm surprised that histogram belongs to the picture. I would have expected it to be crowded up towards the right.

G

I'm not sure why... there's nothing exceptionally bright, nor exceptionally dark, so it looks about right to me. It would look a bit better with a bit more contrast, perhaps.

Could your monitor be a bit on the bright side?

For comparison, here's the histogram from the second one above - the one with the tree and the sheep in the field:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/134-000-Histogram.jpg[/IMG]

I have a lot of deep sunsets from 1989, was there something in the air that year?

The stars were bright, Fernando.....

You're probably right.

G

That histogram of the sheep picture is just good,if you read the scene right.
All the light greens from the grass are belonging in the mid tones.
They make up for 75% of the image.(more or less)
And the minor shadows with the dark heads are pushing down the shoulder far left. The same goes for the bright tones on the backs/side of the sheep.(right side shoulder of histogram) Moving the mid tone slider to 0,75 increases contrast and makes it look a bit better.

This was taken in Richmond Park one very cold morning early in 1989.

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/ScannedNegatives/140-000b-nr-smsh.jpg[/IMG]

Have I lifted the shadow detail too much, do you think?

Looks like you're getting to grips with the scanner and I dont suppose there is any point suggesting a re-shoot.

Do you think film grain is more apparent on a scan than on a print, I've certainly found that to be the case? In fact I've often scanned bromide prints rather than the negs, apart from the fact that it will save a lot of PP, the grain issue always seems to be there.

I think it is a great picture and a good scanning job.
I am inclined to think, the foreground needs some extra work. remove the slight colour cast,
raise the tone of the hoar frost and bring down the shadows of the trees. To give it a bit more bit, so to speak.