yichiyang

I'm not sure if I am too late to join this faulty SQ-ai party. I have the the same problem as mentioned above. Fresh batteries inside, SQ-i prism meter works fine, shutter fires at all speeds, and the shutter release warning LED (aka dark slide not removed indicator) lights up correctly. But nothings happens when battery check button is pressed (actually I got the battery check Led light up at one time today, but I failed to do so since that test). Upon closer inspection, I'm pretty convinced that shutter release warning LED and battery check Led is the same LED, which is the right one (if you take off the prism finder, and it is red) located on the top of the focusing screen. I'm not sure if it is the circuit that is broken or the battery check button is broken. Can you confirm that the battery check button is shorter than the film back release button> If this is not the case I may have encountered a mechanically damaged button. If this problem can be fixed I'd appreciate anyone who offer my a solution.

Thanks for the info. I'm considering trying out MF, so I guess Reflecta/Plustek 135 dedicated scanners are not for me. I'm thinking buying a macro lens and digitize film with my Canon 5d2. I have seen several comparisons indicating dslrs can produce better scans than (cheap) flatbeds, so I think it is a good ideal to give it a try.

As I said, I am not shooting film for a living but as a hobby, so a scanner is quite an investment. Which Reflecta model are you referring to? I see many people use Epson v550/v600, but also heard that flatbed cannot produce detailed scans, especially for 35mm film. Which scanner do you think is a good choice?

Noritsu HS-1800's typical cyan cast seems to appear in your scan too. I also found HS-1800 produces green cast in the shadow. Perhaps talking to the operator may help with the problem, and I'll try next time. Thanks!

I find out generally less detailed scene, for example the hydrant photo, gives great result, while "busy" scene with fine details, for example the grass photo, doesn't work so good. Since there're so many answers, I'll probably shoot a few rolls in the future and find out if it is operator's error.

I forgot to mention, the iPhone photo is not HDR, otherwise it won't be a fair comparison. By exposing for shadows, do you mean put shadows in zone 5 or put shadows somewhere near zone 3? I'm getting used to F3's central weighted metering. In the case of scenes of high contrast, I tried to meter -> lock -> frame and expose. I tried to put sky and foreground about 50/50 in the center to meter, nut next time I'll try to meter for shadows.

I focused at infinity when shooting the grass photo. As I recalled it was something like 1/500, f/8, and was shoot with nikkor 35/2. With such high shutter speed, I wonder if a tripod is really necessary. I will give it a try anyway. As for dynamic range, I think it is clear in the example above the iPhone photo does contain more detail in the clouds than the portra one. Any thoughts?

Thank you for your test result. I have heard generally color negatives has wide latitude, now seeing portra produces usable result from -2 to +6 is no surprise. To this point I'm pretty convinced grain is produced by underexposure. I'll try meter for shadow the next time. As for dynamic range, if I understand correctly, film itself retains wide range of information but the scanner cannot pull enough information out of it. The film is developed and scanned by a local film lab with Noritsu HS-1800, but Hasselblad Flextight X5 scanning service is also provided with (much) higher price and longer waiting time (10 days compared with 2 days if scanned bu HS-1800). The thing is that if I have to wait 10 days plus pay the high price for better scans, I probably won't bother shooting color negative.

You know, coming from digital I appreciate clean sharp and noise-free images digital cameras produce, but I find shooting film much more relaxing and fun. I hate to come to the same old film vs digital debate, but I'm reluctant to give up film so soon just a few months after picking up film camera. I'll probably turn to pure black and white stuff and give up color negative if future attempts to "make negative great again" fails.

Note: I accidentally posted the incomplete thread and exceed the 15min editing limit. So instead I put what I originally intend to say here. Sorry for all the trouble. Hi folks! I'm a amateur photographer went from digital to film a few month ago. I picked up a nikon f3 and three lenses, 28/2.8 35/2 and 50/1.7. I started with black and white film stocks (eg. HP5, delta400, Tmax400) and was pretty happy with the result. However, I tried a few rolls of color negative film, and was never satisfied with the results. I went to Hawaii last month and shoot one roll of portra 400. The problem is that the scans were pretty grainy and blurry. In the photo below details in the grass are messed up with grain in the shadow. You can clearly see what I mean in the 100% crop. I found out that the results were very inconsistent, varying from frame to frame. Especially with good lighting and less shadow, photo turned out to be OK. For example, these two shots have much less grain than the previous one. Both photos have a 100% crop shown below. Please do not complain about the composition, as I mentioned I'm just getting started and the focus in this post is not how good the composition is anyway. In addition, the dynamic range of portra 400 (or the scanner) seems pretty narrow, which is more obvious when put side by side with one taken with my iPhone7 in similar lighting condition (a few seconds after the film version is taken). Considering even a smart phone outperform portra 400, I was pretty disappointed. This is taken with portra 400. And this is the iPhone version. I tried to figure out what's wrong but I guess I'm not experienced enough in film to come to a conclusion. I listed a few my guesses below and hopefully somebody can help me. 1. Operator of the camera (of course that's me) making mistakes (eg. underexposure) results in grainy photos. In this case I will be glad if some one can point out what I did wrong. 2. That's the limitation of 35mm format. I went from digital to film and was accustomed to relatively nosie free images produced by digital cameras. If that is the limit of 35mm format (but I am sure this is probably not the case), I may have to step up to medium format. 3. Bad scanner or bad scanner operator. I send the film roll to a local lab to have it developed and scanned. As I was told, the film was scanned with Noritsu HS-1800. Is it the scanner uncapable of pulling out fine details or the operator's problem? In this case I may have to try a difirrent lab.

Resolution is near 3000x2000. I'll try talk to the people at the lab next time, but I doubt if there'll be willing to do so. Thanks!

Indeed I focused on the hydrant. That photo is meant to be a example of "less grainy photo when well lighting is good". I planed to upload a few more photos, including the 100% crop of the mountain-with-grass photo to illustrate it can get very grainy in shadows, but I accidentally pressed the post button instead of upload photo button. I has lot information to say so I exceed the 15 min edit limit. I'm new here, it's awkward to post a unfinished thread with incomplete information, though. I am waiting and see if moderators can delete this thread so that I can post a more polished version. Thanks for your help anyway. : D edit: I put what I intend to see in #7

Moderator Note: Intending respondents - please see Post #6 and read it as the Opening Post Hi folks! I'm a amateur photographer, went from digital to film a few month ago. I started with black and white film stocks (eg. HP5, delta400, Tmax400) and was pretty happy with the result. However, I tried a few rolls of color negative film, and was never satisfied with the result. I went to Hawaii last month and shoot one roll of portra 400. The problem is the scans were pretty grainy and blurry.