On 3/26/2011 12:38 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Thanks Moose, I really appreciate the efforts.
You are very welcome. You already know I don't usually play with an image
unless I already like it, or see something I
expect to like in it. As to effort, they say if you do what you love, you'll
never work a day in your life. :-)
> You know post processing is not my strength (that's an understatement :-)). I
> do not think it is an issue with the scanning software, Epson Scan. Rather, I
> just do not like to play with curves etc. in Photoshop. The only reason I
> even use Photoshop on these images is that it is easier to clean up dust
> spots etc. than with Lightroom.
Two points:
1. I think it is an issue with Epson Scan. Simple reasoning points that way:
a. Tri-X has been around since 1954.
b. XTOL is also a Kodak product that's been around for decades.
c. If that combo did weird things like I see in these images, Kodak would
have changed the developer.
d. If that combo did weird things like I see in these images, everybody
would already know it.
e. Therefore, the problem isn't in the negatives.
f. You say you don't do any post processing work that could do it.
g. Therefore, it is happening in the scanning step.
h. Tests of that scanner don't show the big highlight spike.
i. Therefore, it is happening in the software.
For reasons I won't bore you with, I have ended up with Canon scanners, Epson
photo printers and HP general printers. So
I have no experience with EpsonScan. The problem with the above logic is that
the B&W and color scans using EpsonScan in
Vincent Oliver's extensive review of the V700 on photo-i don't show any such
effect.
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_11.htm>
Is it possible that at some point you moved one or more or more settings away
from the defaults and they stayed that way?
2. I wasn't suggesting that you take up more post processing. I was suggesting
that proper scanning results should be a
lot closer to what I ended up with than what you are getting now - without post
processing beyond what you are already
doing.
Even just a tiny bit of post can work wonders for some problems, though. I've
added the first step I did on the first
image. This is the result of adjusting two sliders in one tool in PS, only a
few seconds.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Wajsman/Sometimes_I_Use_Film&image=SIuf_Plaza_deA_ShHi.jpg>
> Having said all this, there is also the question of preferences--I tend to
> lean towards muted tones and dislike overprocessed images (part of the reason
> why I have never gotten much into post-processing). Your examples are not in
> that category, and I definitely like what you did with the first image, and
> to a lesser degree with the couple walking on the pier.
I didn't do much to the first one. The couple on the pier got quite a lot of
attention - a bigger challenge, you see.
:-) You'll probably prefer the 50% solution I added.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Wajsman/Sometimes_I_Use_Film&image=SIuf_Playa_de_Postiguet50.jpg>
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/
|
