>>3382308The negs are fine, I looked up a guide on dslr scanning and did that, there's definitely heaps more information in the negatives than the scans would suggest. I fucked up the exposure on the first two batches of scans and I'm too tired to start again, but as you can see here
>>3382200 even my botched exposure dslr scan with pic related as a setup yielded much better results.
>>3382338They do develop only for $10, but at that point I'm better off mailing my rolls to a lab in sydney that does develo + 3600 x 2400 scans for $12.50. Meanwhile these guys charge $15 for a 24 frame dev + 1818 x 1228 scan, or $18 for the same in 36 frames. Their deal is supposed to be that they give you a roll of C200 every time you get something developed and scanned, but it's not worth it if you need to pay at least $22 to get anything usable.
>>3382346I understand what you're trying to say with the whole lukewarm commonsensical "take responsibility" thing, but you're forcing your life lesson into the situation. You don't know me and you have no way of knowing how much I blame others for my own mistakes, so please don't act as if you did. I'm not really pissed about the dynamic range and contrast as much as the resolution. I guess you could argue that not asking them to pull is my fuckup, but I could not find a single other lab on the internet that scans in a resolution that's literally smaller than FHD. Their pricing is in line with other labs, it's even a bit more expensive. It just blows my mind that I'm better off mailing my rolls 4000 km away because they do it for pretty much half the price.
>im sure they have options for them, but they have to ask for it. Which you didn't.So next time I ask the grocer for tomatoes I sould specify that I want ones that aren't rotten? Why is it the default to get something unusable?
>Instagram, Facebook, Flickr, 500pxI highly doubt that those people would bother shooting film in the first place
