Sometimes Albert, I find a lovely photo which scans really well, many
times not so. Perhaps it is not that your scanning has exposed a
particularly grainy film, but that your negative is underexposed. Is
this possible?
Also, as Roger suggest, if you view the image at the right size you
may be less disappointed.
I nearly always come to the conclusion, when viewing a poor image,
that it was my ineptitude that caused it to be so. If only I could
remember *all* the lessons from poor photos ;-).
Chris
At 00:47 -0800 14/1/02, Olympus wrote:
I just recently bought a film scanner... I have almost always taken pics
with 400 speed film; (Fuji Superia400) and have always liked the saturation,
and the 2 extra stops plus a fast lens like the 50mm/1.8 allows me to do
indoors pretty well without a flash.. But, with the purchase of a film
scanner, I've been more than unhappy with the grainyness... 4x6's aren't
bad at all, but when scanned at 2700dpi, the grain is very visable.
snip...
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, England.
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... a nascent photo library.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|