And god damn is it rich. There is such high contrast and strong vivid colors compared to the pentax i used before. Picrel was shot with kodak ultramax 400, and i absolutely adored the results. Never have my pics with ultramax been this vivid. I'll post another picture itt to show the difference. Anyhow, the camera gets this funny glare on the bottom. I dont quite know how to feel about it. And I dont know if its fixable. I got this camera second hand, so this was the first roll I shot with it.
A picture with ultramax and my pentax camera. Its good but not enough contrast.
>>4510436>There is such high contrast and strong vivid colors compared to the pentax i used beforeuser error with the pentaks then?
>>4510436The camera doesnt affect colors and contrast, you have some sort of hifi/audiophile/third wave coffee sickness. Get help anon we love you. With film, the camera is only a box with a hole. And with old lenses there isnt even any coatings that could potentially give color casts. Its just a box with a glass window. Only the film stock matters. The digital scans your lab sends you have been post processed and cant be used to judge eve the film stock though
>>4510437something wrong with the lens maybe? looks really soft
>>4510447looks a bit like ligma
>>4510445>>4510446I dont fucking know what im doing im a noob. This is perhaps my 8th roll of film so far. I just noticed that i liked the results on the mu2 alot more. Why the hell is there so much hype around it?>>4510447Right? I got another pick from my pentax. This any better?The colours are kinda blown out on that camera.
>>4510446No. Do not lie to people like this. LENS absolutely affects color and contrast, for any era, sensor type, size, mount, raw or jpeg. Look at a lens. See colored reflections? That is color the lens didn’t let through. All lenses filter light. OPs fixed lens camera does in fact do something unique to photos your dorktable install cant nail
>>4510452Lel "see the colored reflections" those are on the lens anon, not the camera. I addressed this in my post, are you being dense on purpose?
>>4510436that glare is probably a fracture in the glass. have you looked at the condition of the lens? also what pentax model were you using?>>4510446he's using a point-and-shoot 35mm film camera. it's not precise language but yes, the camera in this case does effect colour and contrast since the lens is inseparable from the camera body.>>4510450this looks like a lens that was wide-open, not necessarily a bad lens. if it's an automatic point-and-shoot it probably opened the aperture to its maximum dimensions to allow for the most light and lenses are usually softest at their maximum and minimum apertures. you have to let us know what the model is though, there might be a way to change to aperture priority mode.
>>4510508You would never in a million tries be statistically better than random chance at picking out film photos scanned at a lab by different lens coatings, dont lie to people like this, pretending there is somehow a difference in the end result
>>4510514there is measurably a better result since coatings allow for more transmission by reducing internal reflections. coated lenses are significantly higher contrast than uncoated. coated lenses also suppress flares and ghost images to a significant degree.
>>4510508I havent checked the condition of the camera, I'll do that! Kindof scared its going to be too expensive however.
>>4510518Thats not what I said and not related to the thread question. But nice chatgpt reply
>>4510514I would have to agree. Lenses do have different color (top picrel), but it's usually pretty marginal. Bottom picrel (which is definitely not mine), is the same lab and operator, just on different high end scanners, which shows just as much difference.>>4510436Film stock gets you like 90% of the look in terms of color and contrast, but some lenses are definitely a bit contrastier and sharper. The lens looks mighty soft on the Pentax, what is it and what aperture are you using it at?Assuming this is the same lab, machine, operator, I would be curious about differences in metering / exposure between the cameras. There's some amount of "correction" a lab will do, so while the scans might look similar in terms of exposure, shooting under or over could lead to the difference in contrast.For reference:>Underexposed = Thin negative, saturated colors, strong contrast. Colors can become rather inaccurate if severely underexposed (more than a stop or two).>Exposed at Box Speed = Natural to somewhat strong colors depending on film stock. Good for general purpose landscape shooting when moderate contrast and color is desired, though a little extra exposure typically won’t hurt. >Overexposed = Dense negative, soft colors, subtle contrast. This is often used for portraits to keep soft skin tones. Nearly endless details can be pulled out of the highlights, though tonal separation in details becomes narrower. https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/12/17/pushing-the-dynamic-range-of-color-negative-filmIf you got your negs back, you could take a look and see if there is a noticeable difference in density.t. former MjuII owner and lab tech
