Moose,
As an additional bit of information, I took a roll of Kodak Gold 200 to this
same lab a few weeks ago, and had no problems with the CD images from that
roll. YMMV
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/
|