I'm beginning to think proper film scanning is a Mystical Art rather
than the Simple Science one would think it should be. I've seen some
exceptionally fine examples both on the Web and in print. But those
seem to be just that -- exceptions.
I'm baffled as to why folks using identical equipment get very
different results. If one person can use a Canoscan 4000 and do
justice to film, why can't the second person do the same? Scanning
seems a mechanical, repeatable operation very different from the
creative, individual use of a camera. Perhaps the exposure and/or
processing the film is a significant variable? Or the film itself?
ScottGee1
On 12/7/05, Simon Worby <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ScottGee1 wrote:
>
> > OM+film scanner = digital
>
> But without actually doing film any justice in the process.
>
> Simon
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|