DWScott

<p>You can see in the first photo that the backing-paper printed through onto the film (it says KODAK...) So most likely your camera has a light leak around the door, OR is leaking through the red window.</p> <p>Inspect the red window -- is it sufficiently dark, or has it faded and become more see-through? Is it firmly attached to the camera with no leaks or gaps? Perhaps you can replace the red window using some fresh rubylith.<br> Of course, modern films are MUCH more susceptible to light leaks through the red window too. Originally the red windows relied on orthochromatic film being colour-blind to red. Modern panchromatic black & white and colour films are NOT colour blind, so the red window had better be DARK. If the window has a sliding blind to cover it up, make sure it is COVERED when you are not peering through the window to wind the film on. If the camera DOES NOT have a sliding blind, use some good black tape/paper (like black gaffers tape) to cover the red window when you are not actually winding on.<br> <br />I'm not sure what kind of foam or cloth light seals there are on a Nettar. Google to get more information and check into changing the light seals.</p>

<p>Ray,</p> <p>It's not so much the "current style" as the hard facts of scanning. You'd think that scanning a slide would yield a digital image that looks like the slide, without any intervention or processing. Unfortunately, getting a digital image that looks like the slide is difficult, and where much of the skill and judgement of the editor comes into play.</p> <p>As a mechanical/optical/electronic process, the scanner tries to deliver as much "information" to the computer as possible. A "good" scan that captures all of the range of darkness to lightness, and all of the colour, ends up looking very flat compared to the original slide, or the intended final image. Making a good scan is more like making a good negative -- i.e. it provides the best raw material needed for post-processing into a pleasing image, but looking at the negative (or the raw scan) it bears little relation to what the finished image will look like.</p> <p>Once you've got a well-captured raw scan, skillful post processing can create an image that looks much like your original slide -- and at least you have the slide to go by as a clear reference. Of course, with a well-captured scan, there are other editing/post production choices that could be made. Like a negative, the scan can be re-interpreted in many ways, yielding many different images.</p>

<p>43mm.</p> <p>I have taken just the 43mm with me to New York to shoot for a week. Even though the Pentax FA Limited 43mm is an autofocus lens, the metal construction, aperture ring, and dampened focus ring make it perfect for use on the classic manual focus Pentaxen.</p> <p>I knew this focal length (+ or -) was perfect for me after shooting with a Canonet 28 with fixed 40mm/2.8.</p>

<p>It's a bit tough to judge from low-res JPGs on the internet. But I do have some (random) thoughts. For perspective, I shoot Pentax DSLRs and mix in film (both 35mm and medium format.)</p> <p>There is a fundamental difference between shooting and printing film optically, and shooting film and scanning it. Especially when the scanner is anything but the best. The two processes are different, the results are different; and most of the time, the results from shooting film and scanning it are lacklustre. Whereas I was consistently happy with 8x10s optically printed from 35mm, now I am regularly disappointed by the lack of apparent resolution and the over-emphasized grain that I get from most scans. Medium format (I shoot 645 in a Bronica ETR; I also shoot 6x6 and have shot some 6x9) is the minimum requirement for me to get pleasing results from scanned film. The grain doesn't overwhelm the scans, and you can see the nice tonality that film offers.</p> <p>But there is a huge range in scan quality too. I find the quicky (1500x1000) scans from the Fuji Frontiers are basically useless. The colours are wrong, the image is oversharpened and lacking in detail. If I get 3000x2000 scans from a Noritsu are much more pleasing. They have enough detail to be printable to 8x10, they have OK colour and they aren't overly sharpened. Still, the scans aren't really what you could get from the film optically printed, and don't quite compare to a modern DSLR.</p> <p>The best scans I've had were made on Imacon / Hasselblad scanners. These scans were effectively perfect (to me.) The colours were very accurate, and very true to life with no colour casts. There was plenty of resolution in the picture, but grain was minimized instead of being accentuated. Blown up large, these scans compete very well with high resolution DSLRs. The only word I can use is "transparent" - as in, I don't see any trace of the scanner itself in the image. You just see your image, clear and unadulterated. While it competes well with DSLRs, it still preserves the nuance of why you shot film itself -- a beautiful sense of detail that holds up when you print large, because the grain seems to contain MORE image instead of simply being random noise. The highlights hold lots of detail.</p> <p>Your photographs themselves look beautiful - but they do look like they've been scanned. I would pick a couple of nice frames, and spring for really good quality scans. Then you will have a reference point --- "this is HOW GOOD I can make this film stuff look in a digital workflow." Either that's good enough, or it's not. It's convenient enough, or it's not. It's cheap enough, or it's too expensive. Only you can decide.</p> <p>For me, I keep shooting film. I like the process. I like the results. But I don't get rid of my digital cameras, and when I really like a shot I know I will need to spend more on a good scan.</p>