I think you are taking nice sharp images with your 300/4.5. In addition
to the lovely tonality and composition, the image 'looks' like it
started out sharp. I agree with what John says up to a point. The
digital scan/print process is not ideal. Even beyond that, the emulsion
of a 4x6 print just can't (was never designed to) hold all the detail of
a 35mm negative.
The next thing which may be confounding you is the the way you are
processing them in PhotoDeluxe. You can play with color, contrast and
brightness without effecting sharpness, but as soon as you start
resizing, you can create trouble. Think about what the software has to
do when you resize and it resamples. If you double the size or halve the
size, or multiply or divide the size by a whole number, it's task is
relatively simple (but only relatively). If you change size by some
arbitrary amount the task facing the software is enormous. Retaining
clear edges and subtle graduations is often impossible, no matter how
clever the programmers were. Try drawing a diagonal line with pixels in
a 12x12 array, then 'resize' it to 7x7 or 11x11 or 17x17. Then try 6x6
and 24x24. You'll soon get the idea.
When I first got my film scanner, I printed some scans on my Epson 1270
printer at sizes I wanted which created arbitrary dpis. I got some very
strange results, including a sort of posterized effect for one picture,
kinda nice, but not what I was trying to do. After some thought I
realized what I was requiring the printer software to do. I switched to
creating image sizes after cropping that resulted in dpis that are even
divisions of the printers 1440dpi. I've never had a problem since.
Moose
John A. Lind wrote:
At 11:21 3/3/02, Brian Swale wrote:
Hello folks.
I finally got a print from my Zuiko 300 4.5 that I am content with. I
have
uploaded a scan to view; it has little of the fine detail that the
6x4 print has.
Go to < http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/photography/ >
and take the top link. More explanation on the page if you can stand
it <g>.
An interesting composition and some nice subject material. Using a
tripod with the 300mm is very nearly essential, but I can appreciate
the necessity to work quickly around sunrise (been there, done that).
Two things stand out about the technical aspect of creating the
digital image:
(1) It's a GIF. As I understand GIF images and their information
content limitations, it might be better if you can use a JPEG for
photographs instead (GIF's are usually line art and diagrams).
(2) If I understood your description correctly, the print you scanned
is a digital made by the lab scanning the negative. Your scan of the
print would make your GIF web image a digital scan of a digital scan.
I suspect this may be a major part of your troubles in making a web
image you're satisfied with.
If you have a loupe, look at your digital 4x6 print with it. Then use
the loupe to compare to a decently sharp 4x6 that was "optically"
printed from the negative. Most digital prints "fall apart" when
magnified with a loupe even thought they're fine when viewed without
magnfication. 4x6's printed optically from fine grain film, if
they're decently sharp, escpecially high gloss finish, will not fall
apart under magnification like digital prints often do. The optical
prints almost always contain much more information than can be seen
without magnification. A flatbed can pick up this information in a
relatively hi-res scan.
Just some thoughts. BTW, the GIF has sort of a "painting" look to it;
interesting.
< 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 >
|