I took another look at several frames taken recently: <http://www.sherb.org/startrails/adamsstartrails.jpg> <http://www.sherb.org/startrails/fieldstartrails1.jpg> <http://www.sherb.org/startrails/fieldstartrails2.jpg>
The scans are mostly faithful to the minilab prints. Other (daytime) frames from that roll are nice and sharp, so I don't think the printing is the problem. However, looking at the pictures again, I think the softness wasn't as bad as I remembered. It probably has less to do with technique and more to do with exposure characteristics of the film (Reala for the first frame, Superia 400 for #2 and #3). t On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 02:22 PM, Jostein wrote: > There were so many interesting thoughts in the Moonlight-thread as to > why the images _seemed_ blurred; > > - film reciprocity failure, > - lower film accutance, > - motion blur (leaves), > - camera shake, > - focusing problems, > - thermal distortions in the air...
