File :-(, x, )
iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
My first roll developed with my FT-b I got at an antique store...didn't come out as great as my AE-1 ;_; The first picture looks like it needs a good sensor cleansing, and then most of the shots I was pretty sure were in focus, maybe because I was using F1.8 @ 1/30 most of the time :/ This shot is one of the best/my favorite out of the roll.

http://www.corporatefallout.net/prod/photos/index.php/091307FILM
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.Camera ModelSP-2000Camera SoftwareFDi V4.0 / FRONTIER350/370-5.0-0J-589Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2002:09:30 11:11:11Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height425
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
Oh the film was Kodak Gold 200, too. All shots were with a 50mm lens.
>> Anonymous
>>77166
It has a lot of grain for 200 iso
>> Anonymous
>he first picture looks like it needs a good sensor cleansing

On film?
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>77205
Sorry, I meant the mirror. But looking at it it is pretty filthy.
>> Anonymous
>>77212

the mirror flips up out of the way when you press the shutter button.. . . ..
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
Then what is the meaning of this tomfoolery? This image concerns me the most.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2007:09:17 19:47:01Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2000Image Height1331
>> Anonymous
dirty ass scanner with what may or may not be semen deposits on the glass?
>> Anonymous
dirty take-up spool or sprockets?
mildew on the film?
developed at walgreen's?
greasy lab tech touched up your negatives?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77248
Did you scan the negative or a print?

This looks to me like you badly underexposed the shot and then scanned the print they made in the lab. The print machines there will modify the exposure during printing to try to get a usable print out of a really dark negative, which leads to the sort of crappiness you see here. I'm guessing your light meter metered for the bright-ass sky and you followed its instructions rather than just accepting that the sky would be blown all to hell and metering for the people.
>> Anonymous
ah, Kodak Gold..

never liked the stuff
>> Anonymous
>>77166

i think 2, 7 and 16 are the best
>> des
>>77248
That's on your negative. The processor machine was filled with aids, they didn't leave it to dry someplace properly, were man-handling the negatives without gloves on or all of the above.

Kodak gold isn't horrible. I like it as a cheap film for portraits but it doesn't take to being underexposed very well, I don't think.
>> Anonymous
>>77248
Looks like whoever developed your film didnt clean it properly after developing (a simple wipe-down with a microfiber cloth will removed excess residue from developing).
White spots/lines means your film is dirty, not how the shot was taken necessarily. Check those negs and have them re-do your shots, or find a new mini-lab. Not CVS or Walgreens.

I'd say bring it to a Ritz Camera that is using Fuji Frontier equipment (most are) since it has a dust and scratch removal function built-in. Nothing you can do about the blurry ones (thats all on you) but the dirty ones can be fixed.
>> Anonymous
>>77441
P.S. If you tell them CVS or walgreens did them and show them the results they will reprint for free.