>>4353672The things i posted are my attempts to get an image out of a bright white cloud. Here is a raw strip
https://files.catbox.moe/9s1hbs.tiff.
>>4353671Yes it was genius. You got me thinking for a second since a bigger format is easier to get high res out of but i think the issue with my scanner is its un-tweakable brightness.
Also cute dog.
>>4353673>your thinking is wrong because your scanner is shit and will keep on being shit no matter whatMy idea was to kinda stretch bright areas over a wider spectrum so the scanner has an easier time although shadows would be crushed completely. Again looking at the film shows me that it is not ruined like the scans but at the same time i am not an expert.
>you can send your negatives to your local lab to be scannedthe whole reason why i develop on my own is because i feel like its part of the artistic process and scanning is kinda similar in my opinion.
I dont need 8k scans, my current ones are 'good enough' as a beginning but they just turn out so extremely bright after inverting.
