Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> .... What matters me most of your answer is that there was a misunderstanding
> about Ken's post.
I'm not sure what that was, nor that it matters now.
> I did not express myself clearly enough, therefore part of the content of
> your answer - which is very rich. I specially appreciate your advice.
I thought my lengthy post was pretty tightly focused on answering the
specific questions:
1. "Could someone more skilled than myself, explain theory and practice of this
technique?"
and
2. "But there are scans which are problematic, those slides which have details
in the shadows and careful adjustment of curves and luminosity and USM don't
seem to resolve accurately."
and
3. "I was thinking about doing something like HDR scanning, merging the
resulting files using CS3 - but I don't know if this makes any sense."
> Anyway, light box and loupe inspection shows my version of 'Gallineta' closer
> to the film original than yours, and I think this is due to the fact that
> although the frame is correctly exposed at 1/60, shutter speed was low enough
> to register blur from bird's movement. This accounts for little detail in the
> wing feathers and a slight movement at the point of the beak.
Tweaking sharpness and toning down the background was just a bit of fun.
The main point was directly related to question 2. The scanning has
extracted shadow detail, without noise, that wasn't visible in the image
you posted, but may be accessed with PS. And if I correctly understand
what you say above, may not have been visible on the slide itself?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|