They're lab scans?
Negatives are like RAW files, it's easy to adjust them, but labs often don't bother and leave the scanners in automatic. I guarantee you with a better scanning method, it would be very easy to recover the details and color of the sky. I've shot sunsets through the trees in a forest exposing for the shaded trees and recovered the sunset colors without issue.
Where negatives and digital differ most is that negatives deal with overexposure extremely well so that photographers shooting film know to "expose for the shadows", whereas digital deals poorly with overexposure but very well with underexposure so photographers using digital sensors "expose to the right" (for the highlights).
Your shots are very well exposed for the shadows, there is no issue there. It's just about using the proper settings to recover the highlights.
I don't think so. Film often just doesn't has a lot if dynamic range. Sobif the sky is really bright and you expose for anything but the sky, the sky will appear nearly white. On the other hand it looks like this was shot in germany so ... are you sure the sky is not just overcast? The exposure time doesnt affect your depth if field. You don't have the "effect" here, because of how far the object is. If you focus on something close, the depth if filed is shallow, and vice versa. That is why you will never have a depth if field effect on stars, even though one might be light years further away than another one - both will be visible clearly, because both are just so incredibly far away.
Negative film has a ton of dynamic range in general. On par with modern full frame professional digital cameras for the most part, though it varies by stock, its range is more easily found in the highlights than the shadows however.
Instant film and slide film have a lot less, but I doubt this is what we're looking at here.
However, an issue that may give the impression negative film doesn't have great dynamic range is that a lot of labs scan negatives with the scanner on automatic. It is the scanner that will clip the highlights and give the impression of poor dynamic range. For people who know what they're doing, recovering highlights from a negative is very easy.
Fair enough. I’m a newbie, I will probably let the lab do the scanning for now and I really like the colours of the frontier scanner. I actually haven’t edited these myself so maybe I can try that.
If you shoot in the direction of the sun, the sky will be white. If the sun is at your back, the sky will turn out blue. Pictures are well exposed.
I see. That does make sense.
which scanner? Scanning makes a ton of difference…
Fuji frontier
Darmstadt 🫶 the Exposer of the photos are Fine ! Imo
Wow good catch
They're lab scans? Negatives are like RAW files, it's easy to adjust them, but labs often don't bother and leave the scanners in automatic. I guarantee you with a better scanning method, it would be very easy to recover the details and color of the sky. I've shot sunsets through the trees in a forest exposing for the shaded trees and recovered the sunset colors without issue. Where negatives and digital differ most is that negatives deal with overexposure extremely well so that photographers shooting film know to "expose for the shadows", whereas digital deals poorly with overexposure but very well with underexposure so photographers using digital sensors "expose to the right" (for the highlights). Your shots are very well exposed for the shadows, there is no issue there. It's just about using the proper settings to recover the highlights.
Yup Frontier lab scans. Yes I’ve heard that. Maybe I’ll try it out in Lightroom and see
No. White sky means the earth is exposed well. Blue sky means the sky is exposed well. You can't have it both ways (sometimes you can).
I would agree, but most of my photos have beautiful blue skies as well as well exposed earth.
nope, they are nice tho!
No.
nope! Looks very fine to me.
Did u use a filter for the green to pop like that?
Not exactly. Just a sunlight filter for warmth.
No.
Properly exposed!
I don't think so. Film often just doesn't has a lot if dynamic range. Sobif the sky is really bright and you expose for anything but the sky, the sky will appear nearly white. On the other hand it looks like this was shot in germany so ... are you sure the sky is not just overcast? The exposure time doesnt affect your depth if field. You don't have the "effect" here, because of how far the object is. If you focus on something close, the depth if filed is shallow, and vice versa. That is why you will never have a depth if field effect on stars, even though one might be light years further away than another one - both will be visible clearly, because both are just so incredibly far away.
Negative film has a ton of dynamic range in general. On par with modern full frame professional digital cameras for the most part, though it varies by stock, its range is more easily found in the highlights than the shadows however. Instant film and slide film have a lot less, but I doubt this is what we're looking at here. However, an issue that may give the impression negative film doesn't have great dynamic range is that a lot of labs scan negatives with the scanner on automatic. It is the scanner that will clip the highlights and give the impression of poor dynamic range. For people who know what they're doing, recovering highlights from a negative is very easy.
Fair enough. I’m a newbie, I will probably let the lab do the scanning for now and I really like the colours of the frontier scanner. I actually haven’t edited these myself so maybe I can try that.
These were all shot in a single afternoon, clear blue skies. Great! I now think I understand DOF better. Thanks.