C.H.Ling wrote:
>For me, the major complain of scanning negative is the grain
>
I can see that as a reason not to SHOOT color neg film. But once I have
made the mistake, why wouldn't I want to scan it?
It is clear to me, based in this case on scans a slide, which I posted,
that apparent grain in a scan may be considerably larger and more
noticeable on scanners of different dpi resolutions. I think that is a
function of the relation between grain size/spacing and the spacial
sampling characteristics of the scanner, rather than whether the image
is pos or neg.
>(also color),
>
In matters of color, I defer to you, you clearly have a finer sense of
subtlties of color than I do. And not you alone. I used to go
birdwatching with a girlfriend a few years ago. When there was a brief
glimpse of a bird, she would always know the colors better than I and I
would know the shape of the bird and shape and location of its markings
better than she would.
I would note, however, that many popular slide films have color
rendition far from realistic, even to me. Looking at Matt Boland's nice
new gallery, I found myself thinking if I presented digital images with
such overblown saturation and occasionally odd color balances as a few
of his Velvia slides, I could easily get criticized for unrealistic
digital manipulation. I also believe it is possible to get very accurate
color from scanned neg film using film profiling, but haven't done it
yet. I did take shots of an IT8 target, but don't have the film develped
yet.
>it fully expressed even with the downsized samples you posted.
>
Well, I don't know enough to even get into a meaningful discussion of
the graininess of current pos and neg films. Back when I shot a lot of
slide film, the grain of 200 and up iso films of both kinds seemed about
the same to me. Certainly there is some grain in the samples in lighter
OOF or otheriwse smooth, undifferentiated backgrounds, particularly as
there there is a fair amount of enlargement in some images. I simply
don't find that as objectional as working at 50 or 100 iso with slide
film. Greater speed and latitude are more important to me. So it appears
to be a matter of taste in the trade-off of photographic variables. One
of the reasons I like the 300D so much is that it has less grain/noise
at higher isos than film does. That way, I can have my cake and eat it too.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|