Here's the Walgreen's print of my 67 year old mom, in our hotel's restaurant. We were in her hometown of Bustamante, Mexico. Man, I hope I inherit those cheekbones. And her grace. But mostly, the cheekbones:
Now here's the same shot, but this time, its the raw scan from the negative:
Wow. What a difference. For the amount of time it took me to scan in the negatives, I now know that for contrasty daylight shots, its best to just scan the proof.
Here are some film scans of bright exterior shots:
This is pretty spot on color-wise. A bit grainy but not bad at all. Plus, I probably overexposed.
The above two shots are both bright interior shots. The first is the raw scan and the second is the proof from the Rx lab. I can tell a LITTLE bit of difference on the mac but none on the PC.
My conclusion: the results are pretty spot-on to reality. But I should try to under-expose slightly, otherwise the image looks rather flat and pastely (which is ok if that is the look you're going for). This stuff is great in that you can get a six pack for $10 or so.
Continuing on with the Neopan 400.
Here are some shots of the Jana Hunter/ Bert Jansch show this past summer at the Orange Show. I'm not sure what possessed me to shoot color at the Orange Show because that place is such a challenge to begin with (I bet I forgot there was color film in my camera). There are two different colored spot lights on stage, if i remember correctly: a red and a yellow. And there's colored lights through out the interior, too.
Print of same negative:
Looks like the scanner correctly found the little bit of sky in Jana's first shot which produced a completely different image. The lab computer was completely thrown off.
You'll just have to trust me that the print of this negative is way off kilter.
Good rule of thumb for Orange Show when shooting color - just skip the proofs altogether. Process only.