Gary Teller wrote:
> >How did you get the scan? It's entirely possible that there is more
> >shadow detail on the film than in the scan. Commercial scans I've gotten
> >generally clip a lot of highlight and shadow detail.
>
>Thanks for trying, Moose. The scans were made from a 4 x 6 inch print
>placed flat bed scanner. Both were scanned at 600 dpi (or was it 1200?;
>can't remember) and then resized to something manageable for web
>posting. When it comes to scanners I'm essentially illiterate.
>
>
Ahhh, well.... Scanning prints isn't plain awful in many cases, but it's
far from what's on the film itself. This is an oldie I've posted many
times, but still makes the point
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/PrintvsScan/ScanvsPrint.htm>.
For your issue, look particularly at the shadow areas, where there is
much more tonal differentiation in the film scan. Look at the crease
that forms the left edge of the "face" in the full pixel samples. The
dark water stains on the print just go black, where the film scan shows
several different shades.
A print has a pretty limited dynamic range compared to what print film
can capture, so the automated printing equipment intentionally throws
away some highlight and shadow detail in order to retain normal looking
(or in many cases, punchier than normal) midtone contrast, so the
picture doesn't look flat.
Not an issue for your shot, but automated 4x6 prints generally also have
quite a bit less detail resolution than the film.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|