Thanks for your comments, Moose. I got a few nice images from that roll,
out in the bright sunlight. Here is one, a self-portrait of me in a shiny
prop spinner.
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Self-Portrait+02.jpg.html
The colors on this are fine, and I see no grain or noise.
I have three more rolls of it, and I plan to add a little negative exposure
compensation when I shoot the next one. With this processing lab, it
appears to need that.
In checking online, I find that Kodak is advertising this film as the
greatest consumer film out there, so maybe it is just my techniques and lab
choices. Perhaps the next roll will alter my opinion.
I do have one more problem. I am still using the trial version of NI, and
it is size-limited, so I can't apply that until I reduce the size, which I
can't do until I finish with some other editing. Perhaps I need to bite the
bullet and get the full NI program.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: A Couple of Film Images
> On 1/26/2012 11:12 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> In searching for film available locally, I found a 4-roll pack of Kodak
>> Ultramax 400, so I gave it a try. To me, except in bright light, the
>> noise level is objectionable, but I plan to use it up anyway.
>
> Jim, consider the possibility that your are mis-attributing the problem.
> I've used several Kodak ISO 400 and 800 films
> over the last few years. None of them have had that kind of grain. I
> didn't look at my scans of the premium films,
> Portra and Supra. I'm not sure where Royal 400 fits & I believe HD 400 was
> a consumer grade film.
>
> I've just looked at some scans I made of Royal and HD 400. They are
> certainly grainy enough, at 100% view of 4000 dpi
> scans, ~5600x3700. But when reduced to web size, while still grainy, they
> don't show the bad artifacts around details
> that these do.
>
> When treated with NR at full size, before other processing, web versions
> look quite nice. Sure, there's some grain
> visible, but it doesn't mess up the detail.. The first seven in this
> gallery are HD400 taken and processed in 2008.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=OlyOdyssey>
>
> Scanning is sometimes tricky. A particular scanning resolution and a
> particular film grain my interact to produce
> "grain" clearly not so obtrusive when viewed magnified on a light table.
> Then heaven only knows what's going on with the
> Walgreen's scanner. Before I got my first scanner, I relied on an old line
> photography shop to scan my film when
> developed there. I thought they weren't bad - until I got my own scanner.
> Oops!
>
> Without access to the film, I can't say for sure what the problems are. I
> can say with considerable certainty that there
> are better looking images on the film. Your decision to eschew that film
> in the future is certainly valid, in context of
> your choices in scanning and post processing. But it ain't all the film.
>
> Scanning Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
