Relatively new Kod Ektar 100 certainly scans well. Doesn't tolerate
underexpose as well as UC100 and skin tones are
not as nicely rendered but is very fine grained and more saturated.
If Moose were connected, with these two posts, it would be time to
mention that profiling will
eliminate the spectral sensitivity peculiarities.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml
Sky issues with Portra? Please elaborate, if you get a sec.
A not a very good Moose stand-in,
Mike
>
> Problem with film though is no one is likely to see the stuff on
computer
> as I'm not happy with the scans, I looked at shooting all slide film
but
> that has a bigger problem quality wise with developing than neg film.
> (slide film scans in fine for me)
With the Nikon Coolscan V-ED, I'm perfectly content scanning Fujifilm
160s,
NPH or Kodak Portra 160nc or 400nc. No issues whatsoever. My only rub
with
Portra is how it renders blue skies. Otherwise, the new formulation of
the
Portras is as good as it gets. Fujifilm 160s is still the closest thing
to
digital from the Olympus E-1 as I've found.
Scanning is now a non-issue for me. For paying work, I'm almost always
shooting Fujifilms.
Still cheeper than buying a new digittal camera.
AG
--
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|