On Nov 24, 2004, at 4:11 PM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Recently I have been able to compare the quality of an image I
> obtained from
> scanning my negative with one obtained commercially. (see Parawa, in
> the
> 2003 exchange)
>
> Using my little old HP Photosmart with SCSI card, I obtained a
> marvellously
> sharp image ( with some help from unsharp-mask) and a jpeg file of 5.3
> MB.
>
> Nothing I got from what I have considered to be even a good processor
> even
> came close.
Yep.
>
> Which has led me to think - no wonder that Kodachrome has been so
> popular. With these fine-grained slides, photographers could actually
> see the
> benefits of their expensive lenses and cameras. But not so from most
> producers of prints of any kind.
I would include other sharp chromes as well. What they gave up in
fineness of grain, they frequently gave better color.
>
> And I think this is part of the appeal of digital cameras. The
> immediacy also
> is an appeal, but combined with the ability to send SHARP images
> directly
> to digital printers does make it possible to obtain with minimum
> effort, really
> sharp prints instead of the disgracefully fuzzy images that are often
> sold.
>
I agree, but indifferent processing is the culprit. A local processor
where I live is able to produce stunning prints from color negative
prints. I suspect your commercial scan problem is also indifference. I
think the appeal of digital is that it is simple enough to put the
entire process into our hands instead of handing it over to someone who
does not care.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|