Film scanning and digital workflow

Hello film shooters!  I was reading a friend’s blog post recently and he was complaining that he wasn’t wowed by the images he was getting straight out of the scanner.  Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to be!  Actually with my scanner I go through extra steps to not be “wowed” by the images straight out of the scanner, and I probably should do more, at some point.  From what I remember the regular PSI software for the Pakon scanners outputs at 8Bit (even TIFFs) though my Pakon F335 is capable of 12Bit or 14Bit I believe; this takes special software which I have never bothered to set up.

I’m not sure how everyone else scans their film, but I decided to write this to show how I do it.  Of course a lot of the time the lab is doing it for me, and while I wouldn’t complain too much about how they do it, if you have the ability to scan yourself then there is greater control over your images and it costs less.  I had my Pakon  scanner out of storage for a few months while I was living in a place where there was room for it, so I had my local lab develop my film and return the negatives to me uncut, which was less work for them and easier for me to scan.

The standard way of scanning with PSI tends to render black & white film with far too much contrast, so I manually select everything and lower the contrast to at least -20, possibly -40 depending on the film (-40 is as flat as it gets).  In the past I exported raw negative images but found that my inversions were losing quite a bit of the image; it’s an extemporaneous step, plus you’re losing all the benefits of working with PSI and Kodak’s experience that was brought to the color science of getting proper scans.  If you own a Pakon F135 (non-plus) you’re using TLX Client Demo and the only way you can get the full 3000×2000 resolution is to output raw, I hear.  But I also hear plugins like Negative Lab Pro work amazingly well.

Now probably the most annoying thing about working with the Pakon is that it was designed to only be used with Windows XP machines (I have a couple) and while that was a damn good OS and I miss it, sadly I can’t just plug my scanner into any computer, I have to have a dedicated scanning machine and then export everything onto a flash drive (formatted for Fat32) and brought over to my laptop for finishing. I have everything saved by roll and drag all 38 or so files into Affinity Photo to start working on them:

This is how a scan will look before I start to work on it:

For some reason the Pakon’s black & white scans still have some color and have to be turned grayscale, so I do that and then adjust the curves to where I need them.  This image was exposed perfectly and required very little adjustment, not always the case.

Even shooting my modified Sunny-8 rule with a non-metered manual camera I’ve gotten pretty good at reading the light so I fluff very little…outdoors.  Indoors is another story, much more guesswork there.  PSI file names by default start with AA, AB, AC, etc, so I add my own prefix which tells me the year and season I shot them as well as where this roll fits in sequentially.  So I have everything saved by roll of film in the full res JPGs, but I do a little more work to get things ready for the internet, starting with making all the images smaller.

I still use a watermark though I’m getting away from that, for right now making it much less obtrusive.  Final export includes a bit more compression to keep the file size down.

And here is the final image:

Can’t resist taking photos with beautiful women!

Not optimized

MAKE YOUR PHOTOBLOG GO FURTHER

Evidently I’ve been a bit of an ignoramus when it comes to running this site!  I’m doing more research now.  It started with this post which I thought I could possibly do without seeing as it is some old information.  But looking at the first photo there (called “weboptim”), I realized there was probably more I could do.  So thanks to this article for helping me do that.  I’ve been using Affinity Photo for nearly a year and like it a lot, it’s a great alternative to Photoshop that doesn’t cost too much and you can own it…compare to Photoshop which makes you pay a monthly subscription to use.

But I realized that my photos on here, while not necessarily large, were certainly not optimized for the Web.  And here’s what I mean:

.

One is what I’ve been uploading before, the other is after tweaking the settings, and I can’t say I notice the difference, but it’s taken what was a 3MB file down to less than 600kB.  I think this site just got some new life, but it’ll take a long time for me to go through and fix all my pics.  But if you’ve run into space issues on your site/blog I hope this will help.

Of course this comes after I’ve gone through the last few years and pruned some shots I thought were not up to my usual standards of excellence, but at least I can say I’m smarter now than I was a few days ago.

Fujipet EE – Ektar 100

It’s been more than a year since I loaded this camera, and I spent all of last school year with the Fujipet just in my backpack.  Things I learned:
-I didn’t have the film advanced to frame 1 for the first several months I shot it, and it took several months to get to frame 1 because I wasn’t winding it far enough, either (I really didn’t use it that often).
-it might need faster film, or a bit more sun
-maybe I shouldn’t be leaving Ektar 100 lying around in a camera for a year before processing?
-maybe before making any judgements, I need to shoot another roll.  I remember that I didn’t always have any needle action when looking through the viewfinder, I just hoped for the best.

I’ll also admit, I’m a bit rusty on color film now, and the fact that I didn’t have the Pakon’s color profiles really bummed me out.  I scanned on the school’s Epson Perfection 10000 in the Visual Resource Dept. (I assumed that would give me better results than the V600s in the library), which took me about an hour for the 10 images that turned out.  Then another couple hours in Photoshop trying to get the colors to look right (large blue cast, and I don’t think I got completely there with some of them, but I burned out, man).

Ektar looks great when I can get it properly exposed, though why it wasn’t most of the time, still confuses me.  Everything I’ve been able to find about the Fujipet says that it should use ASA100 film, but many of my shots came out really underexposed, and that was with me covering the selenium meter with my hand, telling the camera to give it the widest aperture it could.

I have some Fuji Across in 120 that I bought with the express purpose of putting through this camera, but I’m wondering if I shouldn’t pick up something a bit faster, even going back to Tri-X, because the other thing I’m wondering is if the selenium meter is starting to go.  I do think, however, that I’ll put at least one roll of Acros through it, and I’ll make sure to shoot it on a sunny day.

All complaining aside for a second though, I think the Fujipet has a pretty sharp lens, considering it’s plastic, and I can get plenty of detail on those scans when the camera shake doesn’t affect the picture.  OK, I guess I’m not done complaining, after all.  1/50 second can be kind of hard to use handheld with the 70mm lens.  I’ll have to attach it to the tripod next time.

Hey look: shadow detail!

Alright, I’m learning a bit more about scanning every time I fall down flat on my face.  I rescanned all my negatives from the Fall 2013 Intro class and not only did it take less time to scan, it’s taking way less time to finalize.  I’m guessing I could still dig into TLX Client to pull even more information out of those negatives (and I will at some point), but going back to processed scans with PSI has satisfied me for now.  Basically, all I’m doing at the moment is bumping down the contrast to -20 (more, in some cases), and raising the light on a few just on a case by case basis, then again, final correction in Photoshop.  Like I said, I’m happy and it’s making life easy for me:

AA018a
before

AA018
after (and I didn’t even dodge her face!)

AA019a
before

AA017a
after

So I’m glad I finally got that settled.  Read the first part of this saga here.

What I’ve learned so far living with the Pakon

So I ended taking a bit of a sabbatical the last few months, not my original plan but I’ve been doing a lot of music stuff and not much on the photography front.  I’m here, I’m alive.  In fact, it was my intention to keep shooting black & white over the summer and start developing with my Caffenol recipe at home, but what happened is that I think I got a bit burned out taking pictures for a bit so I took a break.  I just finished my first roll of black & white since the summer started.

What I have been doing though, ever since I got the Pakon, is scanning and adjusting all my negatives from my Fall 2013 Intro to Photography class, just whenever I had some free time to get on the computer.  I’m on roll 9 of 13 right now, and along the way, I’ve noticed a few things.

First of all, I’m losing shadow detail, and I don’t know what to do about it.  Here’s an example:

Michelle
flatbed scan of an optical print

AA018a
Pakon scan

FYI the print I had wasn’t my final one, I gave that one away to the subject, and this was one of the outtakes from practicing dodging and burning.  I actually burned her face in a bit in Photoshop to make it look more natural.

17-minolta
Minolta DiMage Scan F-2400

 

AA019a
Pakon F335

Looking at the raw Pakon scan, there’s just nothing there in the side of the piano.  The Minolta scan has its problems, mainly due to the fact that I was quite new to the process and insisted on doing all adjustments in the scanning software itself.  With the Pakon though, for the most part I’ve been taking the raw negative images captured by the scanner and doing all the work myself in Photoshop, and have been pretty happy with the results, but not necessarily wowed.  In fact, going back and comparing some of my earlier work to what I did on the Minolta, the Pakon-scanned pictures can look a little flat sometimes.  It could be that I just don’t know how to use the software that well, I’m not going to rule that out (UCCS does offer a digital photography class, I’ve stayed far away from it so far, now I wonder if that’s such a good idea).

Some of the pictures are looking a bit flat because if I push the contrast too much, I get some rather unfortunate and annoying artifacts, I don’t know really how to describe them.  On the last roll of film I completed, I had given myself the PSI-processed versions as well (I think I adjusted them to -10 contrast or so) for comparison.  PSI tends to make black & white way too contrasty and sometimes unpredictable, but I had lots of shots that I had liked looking that way on this particular roll, so I brought the PSI-processed scans along.  That’s when I learned something pretty wonderful:

From RAW
scanned raw, completed in Photoshop

From PSI
scanned with PSI conversion, final tweaking in Photoshop

 

AA004-RAW

The grain seems to be exaggerated in my raw scans, and gradients don’t do too well (look at the top of third of the picture–I’ve been dealing with that a lot), but PSI is doing a better job making these pictures look nice.  I hadn’t been using my earlier scans as a baseline to match what I was doing with the raw Pakon scans, which is probably why I’ve gotten some funky results without knowing.  I went through that entire roll making the raw scans look the best I could, then taking the PSI-processed pictures and making those look the best I could, and PSI won out just about every time.  And that’s with the Pakon not being able to read the DX code on Tri-X.

One thing I haven’t tried doing is seeing if TLXClientDemo will give me a different-looking file at all, I don’t know if that would make a difference at all, but one of these days I’ll research it.  The other thing is that this company is reputed to have the best modern way to convert and process negatives, and have good color profiles for all modern films that came out after Kodak stopped updating Pakon’s software.  I’d like to try out Color Perfect with raw Pakon scans, see if that could make a difference for me, but that’s in the future.  For now, I think I might be starting over with my 2013 negatives, getting the PSI-processed scans and working from those.  Man, that’s a lot of work to redo…

edit: The saga continues (with a happy ending) here.

Canon T50, expired film and negative density

I’ve put off writing this post for a while now, partly because I’m not partial to this camera and partly because the scans were a bit flawed.  This camera was gifted to me by a friend along with a whole lot of Canon FD lenses, most of which were off-brand zooms, but also a pretty nice 35mm f/2.8 wide angle that has gotten a lot of use in the last year, as well as two (!) 50mm f/1.8 lenses (bringing my total up to three).  So, that equipment along with the Canon AE-1 body, 100mm lens and now more zooms than you can shake a browncoat at, I’d say my Canon system is actually pretty far towards completion.

I’m not a fan of the T50 because there isn’t a whole lot of control a photographer can have over it.  It only works in Program mode, which I’m not a huge fan of.  In fact, its one saving grace is that it doesn’t read DX encoding, meaning I have some control over the exposure using the ASA setting (as long as you’re not going outside of ASA25-1600).  In that at least, it has an edge over the Nikon N60.  Using a roll of expired Fujicolor 200 of unknown age that I picked up at a thrift store for 50 cents, I knew I wanted the colors to come out as warm as possible (or at least have the film exposed properly) so I shot this entire roll at ASA25-50.  Sometimes it worked out, sometimes not as much.  (OK, it has more than just Program mode, if you take your lenses off “A” it gives you 1/60, but I didn’t try that too much, as a lot of the roll was taken with the 100mm lens)

One big problem I’m learning with shooting expired film is that even when exposing several stops over box speed, the negative density might be a bit on the thin side.  Talking to my camera store, it seems that’s a pretty big contributing factor in causing scanning lines.  Without my own scanner and a more personalized scan and attention to detail, I think it’s just going to be something I’ll have to live with.  This day, my mom asked me if I wanted to go take pictures of fall leaves with all her peeper friends so I came along, but I made her take her Minolta XG-A and a roll of Ektar.  That roll was pretty fresh and didn’t suffer from any scanning lines.

With all the complaining out of the way, I’ll say that those Canon FD lenses are quite wonderful, nice-looking and very sharp.  The only reason that I don’t use them more often is because I prefer the character of the Pentax Takumar lenses, even with the eccentricities of using the screw-mount system (Canon lenses look much more neutral to me).  I knew I’d end up getting some pretty nice images, and scanning lines aside, I did.  I’ll rescan this roll myself once I have that capability, but for now, I was stuck in Photoshop using the Healing Brush whenever I had the time and got pretty tired of trying to fix the problems.  Here are a few that I’ve got done and I think turned out pretty nicely.

Here’s an example before Photoshop:
01AA007

I don’t think I talk enough about how nice and how sharp those FD lenses are, but I’d say they do very well indeed.  One of these days I’d like to run a roll or two of Cinestill 50D through my AE-1 and see how that looks, but the T50 I got tired of dealing with and to use up the roll fast I took pictures of several of my other cameras.  Strangely enough, there are no scanning lines on those shots.  Hmmm…

Cinestill 800T, before and after

I’ve been thinking about Cinestill 800T again recently, mostly because of seeing how other people are using this film, and I wanted to chime in a bit more.  Going back to my writeup from last month, I just wanted to make it clear that a lot of the time, this film doesn’t look very good right out of the scanner, so be encouraged.  I’m seeing a lot of people posting Cinestill images raw, and they just don’t look right.  Remember: adjust the curves.  Here’s what I mean:

01AA025  01AA025a
before                                               after

Just a bit too much blue.

I almost never get images I like right away with this film.  It’s not so much of a problem, as long as I’m willing to take a few minutes to adjust some things in Post.  What it means however, is that knowing ahead of time that I’m going to have to tweak it after scanning, I’m only going to shoot it for projects where I’m willing to put in that extra time to get it looking right.

One more thing: this entire roll needed adjustment except for the absolute last exposure.  For some reason, that one came out looking fine, despite the fact that the shots right before it, taken literally one foot from each other, are as blue as everything else.  Out of the entire roll, this one was fine:
01AA041
Too bad I fudged the focus

The guy at the camera store said maybe the color temperature of the lights was different, I don’t think that’s right.  I think it has to do with this camera (Pentax SF-1) having a plastic window on the back that I forgot to tape over.  If that’s the case though, just look at how well I was able to salvage those shots!  If you’re shooting the 800T (or any of the Kodak motion picture film being repackaged by Cinestill or other companies) and it doesn’t look right, don’t be discouraged with the results you’re getting!  Pull it into Photoshop, Lightroom, whatever you can get a hold of and start adjusting curves or color balance, add some contrast maybe.

That’s all I have for now.  Merry Christmas to everyone, I probably won’t be back on until next year.

The learning curve with Cinestill 800T

Since the beginning of September I’ve shot two rolls of Cinestill’s initial offering, the Kodak Vision 3 500T motion picture film (rated at ASA800 for still photography).  In that time, they’ve been pretty busy, packaging up some Eastman Double-X (which I’ve bought a few rolls of but haven’t tried yet) and also the Vision 3 50D (coming soon so I’m told, but unfortunately I just don’t have the funds to order any right now), as well as trying like hell to get the funding to release the 65mm 500T film stock in medium format/120 size.  I’m disappointed they didn’t meet their Kickstarter goal but they’ve been positive about the whole thing and who knows, they might be able to pull it off one day.  I’ve been dying to write about this film but really I don’t know if I understand this film stock yet–I honestly thought that I knew enough about film now and it would be an easy transition to Kodak’s motion picture films.

Well, the truth is that I have plenty more to learn.  Thankfully I still have two rolls of this film and I don’t feel like giving up.  There will be more Cinestill posts in the future.

The story begins back in the end of February when I shot a friend’s show on daylight-balanced Fuji Superia 800.  I thought most of the shots came out pretty well considering my meager Photoshop skills, but I’ll admit that they’d look better with a customized scan job instead of the standard one I get at my camera store.  Back then I didn’t realize that there was a void in my life but now I understand that high-speed tungsten-balanced color film is something that will be very useful for me the more I shoot indoors.  I don’t know exactly when I first heard about Cinestill 800T, probably sometime during the summer, but what finally tipped the balance is when I attempted to shoot another inside show in relatively low light using Portra 400 and a blue filter.  It turned out not to be a good idea; even with my Minolta SRT-MCII’s relatively bright viewfinder and fast 1.4 lens, I was having a pretty hard time focusing.  I wish I could show you my results from that but sadly I messed up when loading the film and didn’t actually take any pictures (the film was reused).  I never realized that the blue filter would cut out so much light that I’d have a hard time focusing, but I won’t be trying that again unless I can find a good rangefinder camera (that works) with a fast lens.  With an SLR it’s just too hard for me, but when I heard about Cinestill 800T, I knew I had the answer.  Here’s my first roll, taken the day I got back from Ohio:

One shot has some mild adjustment to the curves, another had some dodging, both done in Photoshop.  I’m really happy that I have access to Photoshop on any computer on UCCS campus, it definitely gives me an alternative to homework between classes.  If you’ve read up on Cinestill, you know that the remjet anti-halation layer has been removed to make this film compatible with C-41 processing.  Here is the result of that:

I shot the majority of this particular roll at about ASA1200.  Looking onstage from the crowd (there wasn’t actually a crowd), I could have easily gotten away with 1600 and am glad I didn’t give it more light; perhaps I can darken things up with a custom scan but as things are now, these aren’t quite usable, so take note if you’re focusing on a platinum blonde under a spotlight.  Over all, I’d say it was a pretty successful first roll.  I used my Pentax Spotmatic SPII with the 1.8 Takumar lens; while I really wish I had a 1.4 lens in M42 mount, the ability to expose this film at 1600 (and perhaps beyond) without pushing means that it’s not really a necessity at the moment.

For the second roll I decided to put it through its paces a bit more.  My goal was to try using this film the way I’d use Fuji Superia, which is to say I wanted to take a few shots here and there, leave it in my camera for weeks at a time, shoot in all lighting conditions, and take the opportunity to use it outdoors with a filter.  While I think it’s important to take risks in photography, I think I took a bit too many this time around and led to some unpredictable results (I talked a bit about that last week).  Here’s what I think I did wrong:
-Too many variables, including the fact that I used a camera for the first time (Pentax SF-1 with an SMC Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 lens) and didn’t understand what the eyepiece diopter did (it wasn’t quite set correctly I think).  This led to some focusing errors.
-I didn’t use a proper Wratten-85 filter when outdoors.  What I have is a Kenko YA-3 orange filter which works great for black & white photography but I have no idea what its Wratten number is, and I spent about an hour trying to find out.  It did lead to some interesting-looking colors (I’ve included one of the results below)
-I forgot to tape over that little window on the back of the camera and it might be the reason for a blue cast on many of my shots, even those later indoors.  I think this is the big one myself, but I’ll have to shoot another roll to be sure.
-I also might have forgotten to take into account the color temperature of different lights.  Evidently daylight-balanced electric lights are a thing now, so I’m going to need to pay attention to that as well; this is the other possibility to why so many of my indoor shots turned out so blue.

Now that all being said, I’m reserving all the “before” images for a later post I want to write, on what I’ve learned to do in Photoshop.  I think it’s a credit to Kodak and the design of this film that it is so easily manipulated in the digital realm.  However much I’d prefer to see a 35mm print from an optical source, I’ll admit that digital intermediates do indeed have their advantages!  This really is a forgiving film and the colors I was able to get out of it are indeed wonderful:

For the record, there is only one photo in that set that didn’t have digital adjustments to contrast or color curves.  It’s orange.  I found that it was easier to adjust colors and the results were better when I didn’t use my filter.  If I were a cinematographer, I would absolutely insist on using Kodak film for every project, when it looks like this, after all I did to it; I’m sure it’s even better when properly exposed.  The Pentax SF-1 was given to me by a friend about a year ago, and thankfully it took the same battery that I bought for my Minolta Weathermatic.  I feel so blessed to be gifted items like this.  If you have a camera that you don’t use anymore, don’t let it collect dust forever, please give it to someone who will enjoy using it; who knows, you might inspire and cultivate the interest of a budding photographer!  The camera itself, despite being quite modern by my standards, was essentially easy to use.  The LCD menu wasn’t at all hard to navigate and changing ASA on the fly took less time than it does with the dial on a manual camera (not sure the same can be said for shutter speed).  It’s an autofocus camera and came with a Sigma zoom lens which I put aside in favor of an older manual-focus K-mount SMC Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens.  It was easy to use in aperture priority mode, thankfully.  I’m not as familiar with the K-mount variety as I am with the older Takumar lenses but they seem to be just as worthy (I’ve read that the A-series is actually sharper).  While I hardly need another camera system, if a Pentax LX falls into my lap someday I might just have to get a full set of K-mount lenses.

Things to remember about Cinestill film:
-Cinestill recommends shooting it within 6 months of purchase (or cold-storing it), and also suggest that it is processed “promptly.”  Remember that a movie production will buy several 400-foot rolls to shoot in a single day, use it all up at once, then send it out to be processed the next day.  Don’t leave it on a shelf at room temperature for a few years and expect anything amazing.
-Tungsten-balanced to 3200K, but won’t get the same results in all incandescent lights.
-If you have a plastic window on the back of your camera’s film door to remind you what film you’re shooting, cover it up with black electrical tape.
-You might find yourself in a situation where you wish you still had the remjet layer.
-It’s designed for post-processing with a digital intermediate.  Your photos might not look the best right back from the lab, even if you scan yourself.  You’re probably going to have to do some work in Photoshop or a similar program.

Now I remarked earlier that I’d rather be photoshopping than doing homework.  I of course would rather do anything than homework.  While I’m extremely happy with the results I got, I wouldn’t say that I enjoy having to manipulate photographs in the first place.  If you already do a lot of digital post-processing in your work, I’m sure Cinestill 800T will not faze you and I’d heartily recommend it to you.  In that case you could probably shoot it in all environments and lighting conditions without having to worry about color temperature or filters because this film is easily correctable in post.  I personally would rather get things right in camera, get the negatives scanned, and have done with it.  I’d rather spend my computer time killing Nazis and my photography time out in the real world.  If you’re more to my way of thinking, this film will be more for special occasions when you’re willing to spend time to make the images look correct.  Make sure you’re willing to put in the time to actually learn how to get the most out of this film with Photoshop/Lightroom/whatever, because there is a learning curve.  If you can get past that, then the results are well worth the effort.

one more note: The Film Photography Podcast also cuts down motion picture film stock and packages it in still photography canisters, evidently a lot of companies like Adorama, B&H, etc. used to offer repackaged short ends back in the day (to my knowledge FPP isn’t selling short ends).  They have several choices available in black & white that I’d like to try one of these days (like Eastman High Contrast copy film), but their rolls are 24-exposure and when one works out the math it is actually cheaper buying Cinestill’s 36-exposure Double-X rolls (when available).  FPP has Vision 3 stocks but they still have the remjet and must be processed in ECN-2 chemistry or by hand.  Who knows, maybe one day after all the drugstore minilabs close down ECN-2 processing will become the standard for us all, but for now I’m grateful for Cinestill making this film available to all C-41 shooters and so happy in general to see these film stocks available now to still photographers.  It seems like we really have more choices than ever, so get out there and shoot more film.

This review of Cinestill 800T is continued here.

Shooting daylight film inside (without a filter) Pt. II

This is also from my first roll of slide film (Velvia 50) from back at the end of April, when I transferred some tape multitracks to Protools on the school computer.  I just got to the point where I have enough free time to start playing around with them, and it seems that the files have been corrupted.  It makes me wonder why I bother with digital at all…

Before
00010034

After
00010034a

I think I’ll get this down yet.  Velvia turns fluorescent light green.  It was actually quite easy to fix compared to some of the ones I had to adjust from the Superia 800 rolls.  Digital post.  I took the magenta/green slider nearly all the way toward the magenta side, and then added a slight cooling filter.  It looks good enough, but then again it’s hardly a masterpiece of photography.  Again, this was using the 35mm lens that was given to me on the Canon AE-1 body that was also given to me.  The roll of Velvia was expired, I got it for half price, and it doesn’t look wrong in any way.

Film is affordable.

Shooting daylight film inside (without a filter)

One of the cool things about taking an astronomy course right now is learning a bit more about color temperature, but that’s an aside.  With photography, what’s immediately important is that outside light will look different than inside light to film.  In fact, the only film made today is daylight-balanced (except for some Kodak motion picture film).  So, either you go buy a 400-foot reel of 35mm motion picture film from Kodak, or you (would usually) slap a cooling filter on your camera, but that will by definition lose you some light, by reducing certain colors.

I had a brilliant idea.  Actually, I don’t think I’m the first to think of it.  But why use a filter and have to compensate by 1/2 a stop or so, when you could just do it in Photoshop?  Well, I decided to give that a try.  I was already halfway through a roll of Fuji Superia 800, so I just decided to take that camera with its 55mm f/1.8 lens and shoot it indoors.  If the shots looked too orange, I’d just correct them in post (a very digital idea).  Well, it seemed to work out alright…

Before
23

After
23a

The thing is, I’m not 100% happy with the way they turned out, and it could just be the fact that I just don’t know my way around Photoshop that well.  Do they look better than they did?  Yeah, I think so.  But if I had to do it over, I might have gone for a different camera, put a 1.4 lens on it, and just keep it on one setting if possible, get as much exposure on the film as possible.  I’m sure someone out there has more experience with this than me.  Care to weigh in?