First 2 rolls have been processed, but ...

<p>I am new to film (more exactly, it's been 10 years since my last using of film camera, which was an auto one). Just started to try out film camera again and got two rolls of film from two used film cameras developed. <br /> 1. trix-400 B&W on a voigtlander R4M <br /> 2. Fuji color 24 on a leica cl (the reason for a cheapo film was it's cheap and I was testing the leica cl)<br /> After a few minutes exciting, I noticed that some problems. And would like to ask for some suggestions.</p>

<p>trix-400 B&W developed by thedarkroom<br /> <img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/064553d8c4fc872d78a0cadebd36c97a/tumblr_mlbthpVwzq1rmwfsro1_500.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Fuji color 24 developed by walgreens 14th street <br /> <img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/36991a3d51dbac1cd3c6e4df24edebd1/tumblr_mlbtihrHpy1rmwfsro1_500.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="331" /></p>

<p>The resolution is kinda low, especially the color film on leica cl. <br />Could anyone share some thought on whether it's the film, the camera, the scaner or my problem? Feel free to criticize them.</p>

<p>Thank you very much. <br /><br /></p>

Cheap scan. Pictures look great.

<p>Thank you Bill and Les.<br>

Sorry for that. I am not sure how to insert a large versions here, so uploaded the two pictures in tumblr.<br>

Follows are two links:<br>

<a href="http://cultofleica.tumblr.com/image/48091437541">http://cultofleica.tumblr.com/image/48091437541</a><br>

<a href="http://cultofleica.tumblr.com/image/48091398764">http://cultofleica.tumblr.com/image/48091398764</a><br>

Please note that you when the cursor turns (+), you can click to zoom. And that's the size what I got. </p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

 

<p>BTW, by "I was testing the leica CL", I meant I just got it from ebay and not sure whether there is a problem. (So it's a "reviewing test".)</p>

<p>Yet another one<br /> <a href="http://photomentary.com/albums/Leisure/32590036.jpg"><img src="http://photomentary.com/albums/Leisure/32590036.jpg" alt="" width="1544" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p><a href="http://photomentary.com/albums/Leisure/32590033.jpg"><img src="http://photomentary.com/albums/Leisure/32590033.jpg" alt="" width="1544" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>It is too hard to tell on the web whether the resolution is bad or not. You really need to inspect your negatives with a magnifier. If they look ok then the problem is the scan.</p>

<p>Based on images displayed, I think the B&W's underexposed and maybe over developed, but scanning adds another step in the process that can introduce 'errors'. Half your film speed used and try again.<br>

The colour one looks fine at that size. Your assessment of the full image might be just the scanning process. How are you doing that?</p>

<p>Thank you, Stephen and Nige. <br /> I didn't think of examining the negatives (Still thinking in digital photography mode). When I got home tonight, I will use a magnifier to inspect the negatives. I am not really sure why the last two looks underexposed. I remember that it was quite bright and the light meter indicated it's fine. <br /> @Nige, The color one is ISO 200 (on a CL), but somehow it looks more blurry than the ISO 400 (on a R4M). That's also something I don't understand.</p>

<p>These are extremely low-res scans (around 1000ppi, sometimes less, and I'm talking about the larger versions) so you cannot use them to judge the film's sharpness and resolution. In other respects, they seem OK to me - the b&w ones are pleasing and the colour one has credible colours. But the scan resolution is extremely low, even for minilab scans. These images are fine for Web display but when <em>testing</em> a film/lens/camera, you'll want scans that are 5500+ pixels on the longer side, and are produced by a good scanner in the first place.</p>