A little sad & disappointed with the result of my first roll from the FM

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>OK - I've uploaded a few of the shots to my Zenfolio site. You can see 8 shots here... http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/p617283267/ and here is one to show my point... Look in the top half on the right side of the frame.... a pair of parallel lines...<br>

Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p216958555-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[timages]

<p>Dont think its you or your equipments fault (although it might be) without investigating, with film the printing is half the battle. Look around and find a decent Lab, for paying jobs I use an Excellent Pro Lab in Lincoln, U.K. A.Foster & Son, if its just general stuff for myself I use a Lab in Asda/Wallmart, the staff are knowlegable and iv been impressed with their Prints. (This is for color stuff, for B/W I do my own dev & printing) If I want to upload or put any on C.D. I scan the Prints, my only issue with that is that my uploaded scans never look as sharp or good as the prints. I dont want to get a film/neg scanner, doing it that way I may aswell shoot digital, not that iv anything against digital, I just prefer film and film cameras, I like something that feels like a camera, not a childs toy. Maybe when iv got some spare money for a full frame digital, I will give it a try.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Thanks Tim</strong> ,<br>

the above is a scan of one of the prints. It'll be interesting to see what everyone else thinks.<br>

Thanks<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[r. hurst]

<p>Lil,<br>

As some one who uses old manual focus cameras as well as more modern cameras I see two things that are affecting your shots. first the internal meter on the FM is a little off (underexposure by about half a stop), This is correctible. Two the lab that scanned the negatives needs to clean and or replace the felt guides that remove lint and dust from the negatives before scanning. Not to mention that they also need to clean the scanning lens head as well (this is were the lines are coming from). As for the grainieness ..... a clean scan head will correct a great deal of that for you.<br>

May the new year bring you much prosperity and joy.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Thank you Randall</strong> ,<br>

OK so it's underexposing a tad. I can work with that. Or just get it corrected. :-) And the lines are not the camera, but the developing. :-)<br>

Wonderful news & the same to you.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I agree with Randall - those lines are scanner artifacts. A pressure plate or dirt scratch on the film should be visible on the film itself, and usually present as a very fine hairline thickness running horizontally. The scanner artifacts turn out more as a band of different scan density. Yours are at regular intervals apart vertically, which again suggests a scanner problem.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Thank you Robert,</strong><br>

I so appreciate the feedback. It's not my FM - it was the lab. :-) It sets me at ease. :-)<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

[ndt_photo]

<p>I agree with the above responses that say the lines are from the scanner at your lab. I have had similar lines when dealing with digitization of images. Without seeing the examples you posted I would have assumed small burrs in the camera that were making the scratches but would have expected to see either some color shift as they scratched through the emulsion layer(s) or a darker line if it was scratching the back. Stop going to that lab immediately, or be polite and tell them their machines need either cleaning our upgrading and you would like the images rescanned on the house. Did I catch that you paid $5/image? I really hope not, in no time you will have paid for their scanner, you should really consider a low-end used Nikon scanner in that case. They hold their value quite well if you decide to sell it at a later date too. As for the expsoure, assume the lab is the problem until you have issues with other rolls from other labs. Try photographing the most evenly lit scene possible dead on as the light meter tells you to at various f-stops and check the results. If you feel like it dedicate a whole roll to bracketing stops on this one scene, so you will know if you are off by 1/2 stop, full stop, etc... Good Luck, Have fun!</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Hi Nathan,<br>

thank you for the feedback & I will look for a wall to photograph & test the light meter in the camera.<br>

I paid $ 5.00 for the scanning of the roll to a DVD. In total I believe I paid about $ 12.00 or there about.<br>

Thanks for all the help.<br>

Lil :)</p>

[john_cox7]

<p>Lil,<br>

The lines on the print do not appear to be the result of scratches on the negative, but more of the result of the printer/scanner.<br>

The print does indicate that the FM's meter may not be exactly accurate. When I suggested a comparison with your other cameras, I did not know what you had. The meter of the FM is centerweighted, so therefore, if your other cameras have selectable meterings, then set them to be centerweighted. Use the same lens on each camera set to the same ASA, shutter speed and aperture settings and aim the cameras at the same evenly illuminated target. If there is a variance in the FM's meter, then this should become obvious.<br>

Also, may I suggest that you use a polarising filter (circular or linear) on your photographs of plants/leaves as there appears to be light reflectance off the leaves of the plant in your print, which is adding to the "washed out" effect in the print.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Hi John</strong> ,<br>

one more agreeing that it's the printer/scanner - so printer at the lab. I know my scanner's fine.<br>

I will use center weighted metering on all cameras I compare with. And the same lens OK. :-) Will do. :-)<br>

You're right about the polarizer John. I have one for that camera so that's no problem. I didn't bother with it for this roll of film for the simple reason that I was just testing the camera to see if it was working our not. I will locate the one with the small thread size & put it on the 50mm f/1.2<br>

Normally I would agree that the reflections gives a washed out effect, but in this the entire roll is washed out so I think the lab is part of the problem there.<br>

Thanks for all your help & I will work & experiment with the camera some more.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If you really want to find out where the scratches are coming from, don't develop the film at all. Thread up a roll of film, click through it, rewind it. Take it out of the camera and pop open the cartridge. Look at the film very, very closely in bright light and look for any gouges or scratches. You're looking for obvious, definite scratches, particuarly those that run the length of the roll. By not developing the roll of film, you're eliminating all variables that come from how the film is handled in the lab. You can use an expired roll of film, or just buy one of those five rolls for $7 packs at Wal-Mart/Target and it will cost you less than $2 to sacrifice the roll and do this test.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Hi Craig</strong> ,<br>

Of course I want to find out where the scratches are coming from Craig. So I will do as you suggest & report back.<br>

Will do later today. Making phone calls for repair etc right now.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I know this is late, but I just wanted to report back to Craig that I have run a full 36 exposure roll through the FM - I ran it all the way through - both directions. I've inspected it under good light - - -<br>

No scratches. Nothing - clean in every way.<br>

So, I'm going to go by the presumption that the FM is innocent in all this & presume the lab messed up.<br>

Thanks for everyones help & I will run yet another roll through.<br>

Lil :-)</p>