AG Schnozz wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> I personally don't much like grain in pinhole images. I think it
>> makes the smooth, soft focus and contrast graduations edgy,
>> counter to the purpose of using a pinhole in the first place.
>>
>
> Not sure I totally agree. Without the grain, it becomes just another
> blurry image.
>
Matter of taste. I don't agree it becomes just another blurry image.
Pinhole blur, in good examples, like this one, has a different quality
than motion blur or OOF blur.
Martin gave me a link to the scan TIF, and it gives a smoother result.
It turns out the posted image is only a small part of the whole frame,
explaining the large grain.
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Smoothy/Pinhole.htm>
To me, there's something nicely painting like about the smooth version.
>> I tend to use at least a little LCE on almost everything, but
>> wouldn't on this image.
>>
> I'm finding that I need precious little LCE on film scans. But on digital,
> you need it just to clear the haze.
I agree, in general. I've found occasional exceptions. Our flim scanners
have quite different light sources, your pointish and mine diffuse, so
that may affect this as well. You film scans might need a bit less LCE
than mine.
> I'm not saying that yours are or aren't,
I think sometimes they are and sometimes not.
> but I'm finding that LCE is over-used and we're ending up with a bunch of
> amped-up images of things that should be more subtle.
>
Now we're back to matters of taste. It partly comes down to what
effect/mood you are looking for. I touched on this lightly at the end my
column last week on sharpening with the two versions of the rose image.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|