Overexposed pictures? Frustrated with results from Minolta X-370...

Except for the middle pic of what you consider a bad exposure - 311835r10321a.jpg, I believe these look like they should be fine but instead you are getting bad scans. In fact, that one I pointed out may still be a good frame but just an even worst scan. I can't tell from the lack of info in the EXIF, but were these scans from a minilab such as a Noritsu (Costco/Sam's Club) or Frontier (Ritz/Wolf)?

Generally speaking, most of the shots you've shown here are not the type of scenes that can fool a camera's meter and should be fine in auto exposure mode especially considering negatives have quite a bit of tolerance for overexposure. I think just bad scans although it isn't easy for you to judge because they are negatives.

Victor, it's almost impossible to comment on the camera's performance from the files you've posted here. The critical question is "How do the negatives look?" Are they obviously over-exposed, ie. very dense, and/or excessively contrasty? I'd agree with Les, that most of what you've posted looks like poor scanning, with the seagulls / beach photograph being the only one to exhibit possible symptoms of overexposure. The contrast levels are also way too high, a possible indication of poor film processing.

Just as an example, according to the specs, Kodak Ektar can tolerate +3 overexposure. As you can see below, the top left is the "perfect" exposure starting at 1/30 until a 3 second exposure. well past +3, and I can still recover a useable exposed image albeit the last two required scan adjustments and post processing. You're using Superia 400 and according to Film Characteristics Table , it has +5 overexposure range. So to blow out your negatives, would mean your camera meter has failed completely and/or the scanning is bad. I'm inclided to believe it's the scanning.

Victor Hi! I think that you may have a problem with the shutter in the Minolta X-370. It seems to be exposing in an uneven manner. Please see the sample that I tried, below. The right edge of the picture seems under exposed; that would mean the shutter slit is not open fully at this edge. Perhaps a little lubrication and re-tensioning would solve the problem. But before you go for that remedy try working the shutter a number of times [no film!] say about 50 plus times at different speeds. Then test it against a CRT monitor per Rick Oleson's [www.tripod.com] instructions. If you keep your eyes to the edge of the film frame, with the back open and lens removed, you can often detect IF the shutter screen is capping or retarding. Otherwise, the picture seems okay, except for a little colour balancing, which you can do on the computer. I hope this helps. Regards, sp.

Well if you're worried about exposure, you could compare two of the cameras and see if the exposure comes up similar for the same scene, or maybe compare to a handheld meter?

@ Lee: I did take them to my local Walmart (the bad scans). The ones with the Pentax I had taken to Costco. Now that you bring it up, I think you may be onto something. It seems Costco's scans vs. Walmart's scans are higher quality and have a higher resolution. The only reason I didn't use Costco again recently was because they scratched 2 of my negs last time, where as Walmart has never. Would I be better off getting my own scanner and only paying Walmart or Costco to develop them? (about $1.30 i think, vs. $5). I was looking at the Minolta Dimage Dual II/III/IV, if I could find it secondhand. Would it get me good results?

@Rick: I don't know how to "check" the negatives. I can see the pictures, but they don't really look distinguishable to me. I am inclined to believe it's the scanning as well now.

Here's an example of 2 more with the X-370, developed at Costco instead of Walmart. I like the results better definitely. However it still has a sort of washed out look that I am not a huge fan of.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1851/00740018018.jpg
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5984/00740016016.jpg

@Lee, it's an interesting thought, that the particular film I used can handle a good amount of overexposure. I am curious then about why my colors don't look as saturated as I want them. Incidentally, I also have 3 rolls of Ektar that I'm saving for a rainy day (or when I go on vacation in a few days). It's twice as much as the Fuji I think so I'd like to make sure I make it look fantastic!

@Subbarayan: I never noticed that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I looked at all the photos I took on that roll, and a selected amount of pictures have this dark spot in the corner. Many of the photos don't have it though. Maybe it has something to do with the angle of the picture I took? And the edit you made looks great, it looks rather grainy, but however the colors are improved a little bit. I'd like to get better results without editing though. Sometimes I edit my pictures slightly for contrast, but I try not to.

@Chris: I was thinking the same, but I'd have to go out and buy another light meter to check.

To all: I heard that sometimes scenes can confuse the light meter, and there are "good" places to point the middle of the camera at to adjust accordingly. I can't really find information about it though.

Victor, whether you scan it or get it commercially scanned there is an editing process that goes on in the scanner. There is nothing like "staying pure" when you scan the negative. The scanner software has a lot of preferences that are adjusted and adjustable. They parallel what you do on the computer with Picasa or Photoshop or other software. Many commercial labs, when they scan, do a very poor job with their standard editing preferences, using the same settings for all negatives, just to save time. The output is poor images just like poor prints from old times. All the best, sp.

Victor, have you considered scanning your own negatives? I had a friend that wanted a roll of negatives scanned for him. I shot his dog (with a camera of course), and took the film to Walmart. While the scan quality was decent, I noticed on the CD that the resolution the files were saved at were 72 dpi. I've since gotten an Epson 4490 (at Ralf's suggestion), and started scanning my own. I can push the resolution much much higher, and the Digital Ice that they have with it cleans up the dust specs very nicely. Photoshop's auto color brings it pretty close, and a minor sharpening is all that's left. At the time, (in the early new year), I paid $170 CDN plus taxes

Another suggestion that a friend made to me was (in Photoshop) was to open a file, then in image size, boost the dpi. It helps with sharpening, but it makes the files larger.