I don't know what was in Yves' mind but from my perspective, the dynamic
range of a slide is much greater than that of a negative, and it must
therefore be more demanding of the scanner to reproduce that dynamic range.
Regardless of whether it is 1800, 2700 or 5400 dpi. The question of exposure
accuracy is (I think) an irrelevance in this respect. I take your point
about finding the right profile for the negative film you are using - but
isn't that relatively easily fixed after scanning?
Yves a aussi ecrit que "you can get better prints from it than from your lab
unless it is a very expensive one" which I agree with, as I have previously
indicated - except that I don't think "very expensive" is _as_ expensive as
you might think!
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jez.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 May 2004 15:00
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure
inconsistencies
Yves a ecrit: "you can but slides are more asking from your scanner than
negatives."
Yves - why is it asking more of the scanner to scan a slide than a negative?
A slide (to be useful as a slide) has to be more-or-less properly exposed,
whereas because a negative can be corrected (to a certain
extent) in the printing they are often taken with poor exposure accuracy
(at least by my family). And at least in terms of the post-scanning
software the color correction to compensate for the negative base is always
going to present a challenge to color accuracy, whereas a slide is
inherently neutral. (I can't find profiles for half the negatives I try to
scan...)
thanks
jez
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|