A few shots from the first roll through the Voigtländer Perkeo 2

That's a disappointment, Gary.
I may be asking the obvious but are you sure it's not the processing? I ask because a little while ago I ran a roll of Gold 200 through a camera that I trust. When the negs came back from the (reputable) lab they produced the same muddy looking results.
I'm not sure of anything Peter. I've been using this lab for a while and I will say that their results on these 6 x 6 negs were disappointing. Quite a lot of junk on them along with lots of scratches that needed to be cleaned up. I do suspect things would have been better had I actually metered. Instead I just set my shutter at 1/250 and the aperture at f/11. It has been suggested that I shoot at something close - maybe I will with the next roll. Thanks for your reply!
I don't dislike these pictures. Once you get used to them and surrender to their personality, you start to see the positive side of them. Maybe it was not the result you wanted, they are soft yes, but they are painterly and delicate, with no obvious flaws in exposure and color. I really like the last two shots in particular.
I don't dislike these pictures.
Thanks Gianluca, when I first saw the scans, I was really disappointed. Even after I fiddled with them, I'm still not impressed however I did get a really nice digital shot that day that I'm pretty happy with (posted here). I think they look better viewed large and I may select one to have printed just to see if I like it better "in-the-flesh" so to speak. The negatives weren't great from the lab with quite a lot of spotting required on my part and they all seemed to be scratched in the middle, possibly due to handling of the 120 film.
Well, the shot of the flowers at Rowena Crest is digital. Yes, 9 or 10 will be my choice if I decide to get one enlarged. There's something to both of those the others just don't have. This is also from that roll although not the same day. This bowl of flowers was shot from about 4 feet away.90002a.jpg