Here are the Pictures from Blue Moon

Check out the difference between these two first images!! They came back from the same roll and the same lab, Blue Moon. Could this be the difference between shooting the 400H with proper exposure vs. underexposing the film? I have heard that you can overexpose, but never underexpose because you won't be able to save the image. I think this might be an example of the difference perhaps. The darker picture with icky color happened later in the session, so I don't think I compensated for losing the light perhaps.

Again, the scans looked better than the prints! Blue moon was insistent that their prints were better than the scans because they print from the negative instead of from the scan, but the scans looked better to me. I can't show you the prints here to compare, but they were very similar, but slightly dingier too.

These sets of three are a study in the scan (far left), the scan with my editing, and my digital equivalent. Even thought I have a lot of kinks to work out with this system, I am hopeful once again that in not too long of time, I can get the film to look amazing to me. Amazing enough to eventually switch over. I am really digging the film image I took with my tweaks applied to them. In the top set of three, I think the image is a little under exposed, so it was harder to get the colors to look right, maybe?

Here are my thoughts on exposure. So, the photographers I adore all overexpose their film and when I did it, it just looked to contrasty to me, I am liking this a little better. When I shoot so close to a proper exposure, though, it is very easy to underexpose if the light changes a little bit. In the first test shoot, I was shooting 1.5 stops over, and this one was right on. I think I might try overexposing .5 stops. It doesn't seem like that stop difference should make that big of a difference, but I think it might.