FM-10 revived, first shots & overexposure/color issue?

<p>Hey all, I have here the first shots I've taken with my new-to-me FM-10. So far, I love this camera! It probably isn't the best ergonomic, has a lot of plastic, but seems to work OK--until I saw these photos...</p>

<p>I took care since my first two rolls came out blank (user error, but most were going to be underexposed anyway). Now this is the issue: overexposure? or color? My overall goal was to find somewhat interesting scenery to shoot today. It was overcast and about 53 degrees F.</p>

<p>Here's a few questions to bear in mind:</p>

<ul>

<li>Does the camera seem to be taking appropriate photos for the settings given?</li>

<li>What would have been better settings or otherwise done differently?</li>

<li>What about the focus and composition (least studied of all topics thus far)?</li>

</ul>

<p>There is the matter of user-error and inexperience. Please note where this is the only or main contributing factor to these photos so I'll know if I'm on the right track or not. The FM-10 manual and a couple old Kodak and National Geographic Wildlife photography books have been my only help thus far. Well, a couple blogs on the basics of exposure (majority of my studying thus far).</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=1066102">View my portfolio, please!</a> Only 10 have settings in captions, but you can view all to see how I fared today.</p>

<p><strong>Note: </strong>The cassette used was Kodak UltraMax ISO-400 and had been used troubleshooting the camera so the first several frames were generously exposed to light (and the technician said it's <em>possible</em> it could have leaked onto the entire cassette, even if I didn't really unwind it all the way, which might be one reason for the photos being so bland, but seemed to be an overexposure/color issue).</p>

<p>Also, note that I used the light-meter only when set to absolute green light (because IDK what I would do without one at this stage in learning).</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=578718 - "best" 10 with settings in caption</p>

<p><strong>Brandon</strong>, without seeing the negatives it's hard to give an opinion regarding over-exposure or otherwise. My first reaction upon seeing the images was "heat-damaged, light-fogged or old film stock, or totally out-of-control film processing". How about taping a strip of the negs to a light-box or even a window, and posting an image? </p>

<p>I like your compositions, no problem there!</p>

<p>It looks more like a film problem to me, too. Buy some short (24-exp) Fuji 200 or some such and try again, covering the back, and varying other parts of your "practice". It does look like light got in on the top of the back (as you hold the camera). Of course, these aren't exactly colorful scenes.</p>

<p>A second, more distant possibility is scanning errors, but the fixes applied below to one of the images doesn't show the startling improvements from auto-color, etc, that are likely in that case.</p><div></div>

<p>So you think because I had wound out the film at least 5-6 frames worth trying to get it to advance and load correctly (had issues the first time) may have caused issues over the rest of the frames?</p>

<p>The local technician doesn't know a whole lot, but enough you can carry a conversation about aperture and shutter speeds with. She thinks it was a good possibility the canister didn't keep out the light when I was doing it. I did it several times, too. In the truck, back at home in low light, under a CFL light, lol...</p>

<p>I bought some Fujifilm Superia whatever from Walmart today. I decided to stick with ISO 400 for comparison purposes. I'm going to shoot more and be very careful to load both correctly and quickly this time. Probably be a few days since I work this weekend.</p>

<p>I will see about affixing a negative to a window and taking a pic in a day or two. Supposed to help a buddy fix a drain pipe tomorrow night after work.</p>

<p>Brandon, crossing over from a response to your previous question, but I do not feel these photos are overexposed, or not by that much anyway. Some haze, yes, could be due to the rewinding. The main problem to me is the colour - that could be due to the film, but as Rick said, without seeing the negative, hard to say.<br>

How did you digitize the images? Scans included with prints typically aren't great, and my experience with large-lab prints from film these days isn't too great either (I take the prints mainly because I like to come home and watch the prints - but only to immediately scan the negatives afterwards to find out what I really shot).<br>

Running a second roll now end-to-end without loading issues, and then having the same service process it should help understand where the issue is, but one cannot exclude the lab being the issue at hand.</p>

<p>Brandon, I took the liberty of downloading an couple of your images and converted them to black and white. That removes the uneven blue tint and makes it easier for me to evaluate the exposure. It looks to me like your exposures were pretty close to right on, but, like others have said, it's hard to say for sure without seeing the negatives themselves. The scanner at the lab will have made some adjustments to get to where it thinks is the correct exposure. It does look like you've got pretty good detail in the shadows and decent mid tones. It seems to me that you got pretty poor scans from the lab. I'm seeing a lot of artifacts in the skies and on some of the water shots. It also looks like there might be some dirt or something on the negatives (black spots in the skies). Personally, I would take your film to a different lab next time, if you can. Also check to make sure the film you used isn't expired. The poor colors look to me like more of a result of either expired chemistry at the lab or expired/poorly stored film. You might also try to ask around with your friends and see if any of them have a scanner that will scan film and try to scan them yourself. Many flatbed scanners have a light in the top that let you scan transparent materials and do a better job than the scanner at the lab that's really only intended to make 4x6 or 5x7 prints. </p>

<p>P.S.- Glad you got the film transport issues worked out. I've always thought that Nikon could have come up with a better system for loading film onto the take-up spool. I've shot a blank roll or two myself. I've since learned to always check that the rewind crank starts turning after advancing the first few frames. It's saved me several times when I thought the film was properly loaded and it wasn't.</p>

<p>Don't believe Nikon had much to do with making the FM-10 other than requesting their lens mount be on the front along with the name. I'm pretty sure that it was one of the last Cosina products which were made for various marks. Consequently the film loading mechanism was courtesy of Cosina.</p>

<p>Quite right Floyd, the FM10 is a complete Cosina effort, but that platform was and still is used for various cameras including their own Bessa series. Although they are very plasticky, they actually work very well and the meters in my Bessa R cameras work really well.<br>

Hard to know where your problems lie without seeing the negs, but don't give up, all good things come to those who wait!</p>

<p>I used CVS (don't hurt me for using a drug store lol). The ladies there seemed fairly knowledgable and said they had to be certified to do it. They simply black bag it, add another leader, and feed it through a commercial machine which processes in like 8-15 minutes and spits them out.</p>

<p>I first noticed issues with "water" marks or spots and waves on the blank rolls. I asked about it and they said it wouldn't be noticable on film with actual images on the negatives. Clearly they were wrong to a degree as you can see in the skies on some of the photos.</p>

<p>But they also had a Kodak film scanner and she said she wouldn't cut the negatives for me. I had her scan them onto a CD and the total cost was about $4 with tax. </p>

<p>I'm full of questions and didn't know it actually could be done so quickly, so I asked a lot of questions. One thing I gathered is there are 6 rollers in the machine the negatives go through (hence waves or roll marks on the blanks at least) and they change the fluid at about 3 month intervals and simply add chemicals in between.</p>

<p>The thought of poor processing did cross my mind, but the average person and especially using film back in the day or even today would expect quality of this nature, but I know it can be done better. I imagine the average non-photographer also wouldn't notice as many issues.</p>

<p><strong>So I can use any flatbed scanner with a light inside to scan my own negatives?</strong> I have an older Lexmark workhorse which has one, just need a new USB cable. I guess I would also need to cut the negatives (Xacto knife, etc? every 3-5 frames?).</p>

<p>Someone mentioned blue tint--yes, I observed that as well. But say, the pictures of the mountain tops...they were more gray (not as blue tinted, overcast day) and white fog just rolling over the tops of them. You can barely distinguish them from the sky, much less fog from snow or sky. To me, I thought the best picture was one taken that came out 99.9% the way it was seen IRL. Right or wrong?<br>

and the tree stump/green leaves photos? One came out blazing bright--definitely didn't look like that!</p>

<p>Yes you can use a flatbed scanner if it can scan transparencies. The colour problems in your images look like outdated chemicals in the machine, or VERY outdated film. If the problem is in the negatives, you may desaturate the images to get reasonably good B&W.</p>

<p>I'd try a different lab next time. Or make sure they have changed the chemicals in their machine. These days people delay changing the baths because of cost and few film users. End result, chemicals get outdated and color goes bonk.</p>

A flatbed scanner is ok for scanning prints but if the scanner has no compensation for negatives ( typically

an additional over head light source) it may not be suitable for scanning negs.

<blockquote>

<p>So I can use any flatbed scanner with a light inside to scan my own negatives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It has to have a light in the top so that the light shines through the negatives instead of reflecting off of them like a print or document. Some flatbeds do, others don't.</p>

I'll have to look! I think the light is bottom glass

side.