plasma181

<p>Nicholas: You may be right. The first example was taken with aperture priority, and the neg doesn't look overly light or dark. So I'm pretty sure exposure is correct. I would have to say it is either a bad batch or processing. I will have to spend the money to do a re-bleach treatment that Alan suggested. I'm not sure it will work, but it is the only concrete action I am able to take at this point. </p>

<p>It's the Coolscan LS-2000 using VueScan, which was used for most of my portfolio. But the pics from the developer look about the same. </p>

<p>......... when it normally looks like this. </p><div></div>

<p>I have heard that before, but I have used both Portra VC and NC in the past for portraits. Results have always been good. Normal Portra VC cannot look like this ...</p><div></div>

<p>My experience with Portra, up until now, has been all good. The wedding shots in my portfolio are all Portra. Could there be “good Portra” and “bad Portra” floating around out there?</p>

<p>Thank you for all the replies. I know Portra is a great film that can handle brutal lighting conditions. It may be hard to tell from one example, but I know this is not normal Portra behavior. My shots have wildly high saturation. I have to lower the saturation in P.E., which I never do with Portra, even the VC. I will try to find a lab to re-bleach. </p>

<p>I have been shooting C-41 ever since I was a pre-teen. Or for ..... oh ........ something like 35 years now, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. Back on Memorial Day, I loaded up my Nikon FM3a with Portra 400 VC, the strips say 400 VC-3. Mostly I shot in aperture priority. When I got the shots back, I saw wildly high saturation and weird color bands. I figured bad scanning, and my trusty LS-2000 scanner would fix everything. Well, when I started scanning, I saw the exact same thing. </p>

<p>Has anyone seen anything like this before? The film expires late next year. </p><div></div>

<p>Did you ever smell film? Usually, when I open up a new canister of C-41, I give it a quick sniff. <br>

It smells like .............. limitless possibilities. : - ) </p>

<p>If you have manual focus, there is an old trick portrait photographers used to use. If they were forced to use a tight aperture, they would focus a little in front of their subjects, not directly on them. Because of the depth of field, their subjects would still be in focus, but the background would be blurred.</p>

<p>I'm guessing you have to be really good to pull this off. </p>

<p>You can get a Nikon Coolscan Ls-2000 or IV for a few hundred used on eBay. For C-41 film, they are the best value. You can get scanners with higher resolution, like the V or 5000, but I'm not convinced you will get any more detail from C-41. </p>

<p>I got a used Coolscan LS-2000 on eBay for under $300 USD several years ago. Nikons are the best for color negative film. Most of my portfolio was scanned with it. </p>

<p>The pictures in the pamphlets were shot with film. :-) </p>

<p>My one and only wedding so far was a big success with only 4 rolls of Portra. </p>

<p>I have done a little slide work with my FM3a. You have to be careful with metering, just like digital. </p>

<p>Then again, you could buy a used film SLR on eBay. No shutter lag at all, but you have to wait to see if you got the shot. Optical viewfinder and low lag are things you pay for in a high end digital. </p>

<p>There is an old trick that isn't used much anymore since autofocus became common. It was called "front focusing". You dial in as tight an aperture as you need, then manually focus in front of your subject. So if your subject is 7 feet away, you might focus at 5 or 6 feet. Your tight aperture gives you enough depth of field so your subject is in focus, but the background is a blur. </p>

<p>A 50mm is a bit too wide for portraiture on a film SLR, except for groups. It works better on a DSLR with a smaller than full frame. An 85mm should be good for both film and digital. If your lens is too short, you have to move close to your subject which causes distortion. If you have to use a short lens for a portrait, you could keep back and crop, but you would lose some resolution. </p>

<p>I have a Coolscan LS-2000 film scanner, a Nikon FM3a film SLR and a D-70 DSLR. It is true that a DSLR is easier than scanning film. But I find the dynamic range is very limiting. When I take a shot of sunlight filtering through trees onto the ground, I end up with areas that are too bright and too dark. My film SLR/scanner handles this much better. In extreme situations, I can even scan the same frame twice at two different brightness settings, then combine the images to get a cheap-o HDR effect. </p>

<p>When all is said and done, both film and digital have a place in my bag. </p>

<p>I have the LS-2000 that I bought used off eBay. I started out using the Nikon software, but I switched over to VueScan which is superior. I'm not sure why the grain is so bad, but you can try the grain reduction that comes with VueScan, or you can try another software to smooth it out. </p>

<p>The majority of my portfolio was scanned with the LS-2000. </p>

<p>I generally put my pictures in the form of high quality JPGs and take them to the pharmacy for printing. </p>

<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that some Ni-mh batteries have negative ends that are recessed into the cylinder. Some flashes, like my SB-28, will have trouble handling them. </p>

<p>Here is a YouTube video of a guy who build a homemade X-ray tube, then used it to take pictures.</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/user/AScannerClearly#p/u/1/nVIAxN37Krc</p>

<p>At about 5 minutes, the guy sets up a camera to take X-ray pictures. He uses a digital, but you can use 35mm. </p>

<p>My experience with .xmp files is that if you change the extension to .jpg, that's what you get. It's like a small sample of the full size picture. </p>

<p>Film will be dying for a thousand years. </p>

<p>I bought a used D-70 a few weeks back. I am using manual focus Nikkors on it, since that's all I have. Not only is the focus manual, but I the D-70 won't meter with manual lenses. So I have to use a light meter or chimp the histogram. Results have been pretty good.</p>

<p>http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10974356-md.jpg </p>