Yikes! A couple questions come immediately to mind:
- How was the film processed?
- Which scanner did you use and at what resolution?
Also, did you have a 'traditional' print made from the film? If so,
was it as grainy? I set off 'traditional' in that sentence because
most labs no longer print from negatives, but rather scan them and
print from that file.
I recently had my lab scan entire rolls AND make traditional prints.
The scanned images are quite grainy, the prints, however, are not.
Thanks for sharing your results!/ScottGee1
On 5/9/05, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On my recent trip, I took a few images with both OM-4 and 300D with the
> same subjects <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/FvD01.htm>.
>
> This one is a pretty fair test, in that the same iso was used for both
> and the zooms were at pretty similar effective focal lengths. The film
> shot looked pretty grainy, but had been cropped some, so I lightened the
> grain some in NeatImage, but leaned toward image detail over absolute
> grain reduction. I suppose I need to do some testing at different
> scanner dpis, to see how that affects grain, but that sounds a lot like
> work....
>
> The film scan was much bigger than the 300D image. Both were downsampled
> to the same jpeg size with WPPro.
>
> Fuel on the fire?? :-)
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|