Remember the original question: Why is the subtle color change at the
end of the petals of this flower missing in the photos? The question
related to regular consumer 4x6 prints (where Clendon(?) already found
the color lacking) scanned on a flat bed. I was exploring the
contribution of the process used vs. direct scanning of the film on a
film scanner. In that context, I believe the experiment found out where
the color most likely went. A number of the comments remarked on
contrast problems, 'blown-out highlights', etc. I believe the answer to
those issues lies in the same place.
Your explanation for the contrast problem may be the case, although I
think it's at least partly due to the print, too, as I have the
advantage of having it here in front of me. It doesn't seem to me to be
just loss of contrast, but loss of both the high and low end of density
and loss of subtlety of tonal graduation. I picked the brighter part of
the picture for the specific purpose of the test. Darker areas of the
print have better apparent sharpness and better tonal graduation.
As to focus, the 4x6 print looks pretty sharp viewed in the usual way,
10-12" from the eye - and I have 20-10 corrected vision in one eye. The
image on my screen is about 6x the size of the 4x6 print, or the
equivalent of viewing a 24x26" print close-up, a pretty tall order for
enlargement from a consumer print. I believe some of the softness may be
focus in the printing machine, but that most is simply resolution
limitation in the print emulsion; certainly the original neg is sharp.
Now that I've calculated the effective size, I'm pretty impressed with
the film, lens and scanner performance. I forgot to mention the film
before. Kodak Gold 400-3, not a film I'm familiar with, it just came in
a box of other film as a bonus, but certainly not a known superfilm.
Moose
Chris Barker wrote:
I am not sure that I would agree that you are comparing like with like
here Moose. The left hand image is out of focus, the right hand is in
focus.
I agree that the scan of the print lacks contrast compared with the
film scan, but I put this down to the fact that the former is scanned
from a reflective medium - the latter does not lose contrast because
light is transmitted through the medium. I have found this with my
rare scans of prints, which I do only when I have no alternative.
Chris
At 00:28 -0700 15/9/02, dreammoose wrote:
I've thought all along that a big part of the problem is the combo of
automated printing and scanning a 4x6 print. Now I have some evidence
to offer
Check out
<http://home.attbi.com/0.000000E+00dreammoose/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-322698.html>
.
Side by side are 2 crops of the same shot. The original was shot
5/1/02 with an OM-4(T) and Tamron SP 60-300mm lens, set at 300mm/f5.6
and either 1/60 or 1/125 with the lens resting on the car window
(engine off!!) to steady it.
The left one is a 600dpi flatbed scan of a 4x6in. print from Kodak
Royal processing. The right one is a 2720dpi scan with a Can*n
FS2710. This gives roughly the same image resolution without any
resampling. The area shown is about 300f the width and 260f the
height of the full frame, or about 80f the area.
As I expected, the film scanner image is much sharper. I've said
before that print emulsions are just not designed to hold high
resolutions, but I was a little surprised at how big the difference is.
< 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 >
|