Lukasz Grabun wrote:
>>> http://grabun.com/tmp/odbitka-1.jpg )
>>>
>> lot of the dynamic range in a print with less "pop", while most are
>> happy to throw away the extremes of brightness and pump up contrast and
>> saturation to please snapshooters.
>>
>
> I haven't put myself clearly: I personally prefer the upper one which
> has better and more natural color rendition and reflects better what I
> actually tried to picturize. The bottom one has eye-candy colors that
> I do not fancy that much after all.
>
Yes, you were very clear. And I agree with you. I was just pointing out
the reality that many automated develop/print operations go the other
way to cater to snapshooters. And showing that everything is there in
the poor print, just misadjusted.
>> 1. Find a place that pleases you.
>>
> Tough. There's no *analog* labs here in Warsaw, most of them - if not
> all - print them digitally, scanning them first and them throwing them
> onto glossy - yuck - paper. I found *one* - literally - place that
> still has color prints made on photo enlarger in offer but 13x18cm
> print costs $5 which is a bit out of my financial capabilities.
>
Several people here have reported excellent results from scanned images
that they prepare for printing on minilab machines. But that still means
you need a scan. :-(
>> 2. Scan the negs yourself and either:
>> a. Have them printed by a place that will do it without any
>> adjustment on their part.
>>
>
> A good scanner, anyone? I tried to scan Superia 800 on Epson 4490 I
> own and couldn't get any good results. Most of scans had a green color
> cast; I couldn't remove it in photo manipulation program without
> spoiling other colors :-(
>
1. Unless you have a defective scanner, you have a software settings
problem. The automatic color/contrast, saturation setting in the
software is dong the same thing as a minilab, only dumber. There is
probably a neutral WB setting or other way to adjust it. Learn more
about the software or get VuseScan and learn it.
2. The 4490 is only midrange. The 4990 or V700 are better scanners. If
you are only going to be doing 35mm film, there are some bargains on
good older scanners out there, but it takes some time and trouble to
find what you want.
>> The option of slides is only attractive IMO if you are planning to show
>> them with a projector. Otherwise, their more limited dynamic range is
>> just a limitation color neg. doesn't have. Scanning is about equally
>> easy with either, at least for me, but getting good prints from labs is
>> more difficult than for neg film.
>>
>
> Scanning slides was never a problem for Epson if one is willing to
> give up the rendition of shadow details.
I'm not willing to give up the dynamic range of color neg film. I quit
using slide film a long time ago for that reason.
> Most of shots from here were scanned by myself on Epson 4490:
>
> http://grabun.com/zdjecia/2007/zawilce/
>
> Results are pretty good, for my eye, but then again the dynamic range
> of those shots isn't that wide...
>
Very nice! You have lost highlight details at least in 7, which would be
there with the same exposure on CN film. Also on 11, but I assume that
was an artistic decision.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
