Thanks Moose for this and your previous postings on the topic.
I feel comfortable that I am doing things right ........ at least with the
scanner !
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] romance of film
> On 10/1/2010 12:46 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>> I am in need of a reality check !
>>
>> I have spent many hours this week using a Nikon 9000 Coolscan to scan
>> numerous 35mm slides [K25 and K64] and colour negatives [Portra NC and
>> VC] ...
>>
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the on-screen slide and neg scans seem to have a
>> deeper and richer visual ambience than any digital images generated by my
>> E3 and 12-60 lens.
>>
>> Do I need to get my eyes checked or is what I am sensing quite rational
>> and to be expected ?
>
> Moose weighed in at some length about the difference between the digital
> capture step and a finished print.
>
> John also asked about Ctein.
>
> Co-incidentally, Ctein weighed in on the process of digital printing from
> film in his TOP column this week.
> <http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/10/perfunctory-guide-i.html>
>
> In particular:
>
> "Scanning film, especially negative film, is very straightforward in
> principle. People most often get into trouble when
> they try to get too "clever" about their scanning, hoping to divine some
> magical trick. The purpose of scanning should
> simply be to capture as much data as possible from the original film in a
> form that is easily manipulated on the
> computer. Choose scanner settings that will catch the longest density
> range in the film, hopefully everything from the
> deepest shadows through the brightest highlights (this can frequently be
> done with a not-excessively-expensive scanner),
> at as high a resolution as is practical, and in as linear a form as is
> possible.
>
> Aesthetically, such a scan will not look good: it will look flat, low in
> contrast and/or color saturation, and it will
> in no way make a good print by itself. Effectively, it is a digital
> negative. But, that's what you want to start off with."
>
> I'm not entirely in agreement with him. When scanning color neg film with
> an ICC profile, I usually find the scan to
> look quite good "right out of the box". However, I still am mostly
> interested in the histogram at that point - and he is
> the well known master printer.
>
> Moose
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5514 (20101008) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5514 (20101008) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|