Forgive me for making a single answer to all of you, and a late one, that is,
but I was busy cleaning and adjusting a little telemetric that just fell into
my hands - sold in "working condition", except for the telemeter (completely
inaccurate) and the slow speeds (the 1" gave a nice 8" when fired) ; not an
olympus, because I couldn't find a RC nor a SP, but a tiny french gem
OPL-FOCAsport II, very nice and small but heavy as hell. And working, after
two days of intensive care, including massive amounts of "essence C" (more or
less lighter fluid), a couple of regrinded screwdrivers, and a lot of bad
words.
Well, anyway, thank you all for your kind comments, I'm happy that some of my
pics were appreciated ; I know that I should improve (and there's plenty of
room for me to do so - while taking pics as well as in the labs, both wet and
virtual).
I knew they weren't all of the same "standard", now my goal is set to make all
future pics in the same range as the 1st 3, which seem to be appreciated by
everybody.
And I'll provide more "bridges" into the pics ;-)
To answer about scanning, as requested, all pics were enlarged on 7x9 in
ilford MG IV .44M RC, then scanned on my antique HP scanjet 4C at 300 dpi,
color, then post-processed in the gimp : converted to b&w, some "stamp" to
cover dust specs (not all of them to keep the feeling of paper pictures),
histogram "normalized", a touch of sharpening filter (.5 for 5 pixels), then
reduced to 1024x768 at most (portraits oriented pics are xxx x 768, where xxx
< 768). The loss of details in shadow areas can be blamed on the short
numerical range of the scanner (12 bits, but, hey, it's a decade old !), and
the reduction from ~ 3000 x 2000 pixels to a third (rounded figures).
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|