> C.H.Ling <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Scanning slide and negative is no comparison, slide is ten times
> better for sure! Provided you have a good film scanner with
> D-range>3.6 and low noise. Scanning slide get accurate color
> reproduction, negative never, different negative gives different
> color
> response curve, you can never get the exact color/tone, what you can
> do is to adjust for what it looks "good" can't say accurate. So far
> all negative are grainy when scanned except the discontinued Ektar
> 25,
> slides has much less grain.
>
> The only advantage of negative is the wide latitude, when you under
> or
> over exposed a frame you can still get back the details during
> scanning.
>
I agree - I've just completed scanning several hundred images going back up to
20 years old, just selecting some important frames. This was an horrendous
task
due to different film manufacturer (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa), different emulsions
from
each manufacturer and a variety of lighting (daylight, stage, flash). Most of
the
images were colour neg with a few Kodachrome. The Kodachrome was a
breeze, the colour negs were all over the place with colour balance,
fortunately
most of the images included faces so I was able to get a reference from the
skin
tones. The worst film if I remember correctly was Kodak Ektar 1000 (?), the
mask didn't even look like normal colour neg.
Wayne Harridge
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~w_harridge
< 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 >
|