I suspect film scans posted to the Internet are one of primary reasons film
is so quickly falling out of vogue.
It's very unfortunate that a lot of people who could know better make
judgements about fine quality by looking at their (relatively) low
resolution computer screen.
I quite agree that a fine transparency, viewed on a good light table, is a
thing of beauty, especially one shot to LF. But Bill's comment is right on
in my experience. Standards are declining and most people can't see the
difference and/or simply don't care.
FWIW/ScottGee1
On 10/17/05, jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Again, no matter whether film or chrome, it simply isn't a fair
> comparison
> > of digital files vs. a scanned and printed film. That, of course,
> > precludes
> > any comparison other than one made in person, but who said life is
> fair...
> >
> > I'm considering having a digital file written to a film recorder, and
> > having
> > a print made to compare with an optical print.
>
> I agree, I was shocked at the difference between my scans and the
> originals. I never owned a projector and so my only expereince was looking
> at the scans. I assumed that film was ok but not that sharp. then I got a
> light table and a loupe...
>
> by the time I have scanned my slides even with the minolta scan elite 5400
> they are not even close to what I see on the light table with a 10x loupe,
> there is less dynamic range with less shadow detail, its less alive, there
> are bags of general detail but its all soft it does not have the sharpness
> of the slide. The greens are no where near as saturated.
> James
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|