On 5/7/2015 7:02 PM, Willie Wonka via olympus wrote:
Challenge accepted...:)
I am still going to do what I said I am going to do. I am going to scan them
using my camera first. Then send The Silvernosed a few.
I know that whatever he would do, would turn out better than mine, but I doubt
it would be, because of the equipment used...I have been edumicating myself and
learned something that pleasantly surprised me:
My co-worker, the Olympus fanatic, put me on a tangent and I revisited the
dpreview of my camera. I then messed around further and found out that...
...wait for it...
Only one camera is marginally capable of taking better quality daylight images
than mine and that is...
...wait for it...
...a full frame camera.
Clearly, your friend is not an up to date Oly fanatic, or he would have included the E-M5 II in High Res mode. 9216 x
6912 = 63.7 MP, more accurate color and no moire. The drawback is it can only be used effectively on static subjects -
but, wait a minute, that's what we have here. ;-) <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/4>
Granted, the other full frames redeem themselves when it comes to low light by
a healthy margin.
I am going to use that Sony sensor to my advantage,
When you do this, and if you are disappointed in the results - not as sharp as you expected, not in focus both center
and edge, in spite of relatively flat film, reconsider the lens. Moose has already mentioned this likelihood and DPR
weighs in with:
"The 18-55mm's decent performance in our studio tests does come at a slight cost in close-up performance. Maximum
magnification is impressive at 0.4x, at a closest focus distance of 0.23m and with a working distance of about 0.1m from
the front of the lens of the subject.
Center sharpness is high even at F5.6, however in our flat-field chart tests the corners are rather soft, due at least
in part to strong curvature of field. They progressively sharpen up on stopping down, but never match the centre. Most
other 18-55mm kit lenses do a bit better in this regard (although the old 18-70mm was rather worse)."
Of the 55-200, SLRGear says "Macro operation is fairly good for this lens, at 0.29x magnification (1:3.45 reproduction
ratio) with a minimum close-focusing distance of 95cm (just over 3 feet)" Kurt Munger had better things to say about it,
although his one example in not particularly informative. <http://kurtmunger.com/sony_55_200mm_f_4_5_6_reviewid212.html>
I'm not saying they will be bad, only that, if things don't look as good as you hope, don't ignore the lens as a
possible factor.
but I would also like to know at the end what you did, AG. How you achieved the
results and why you took that route.
I imagine scanning. Because, if one has a suitable scanner, it's easier, better
and has IR dust/scratch removal.
I would be also interested to know if you are going to apply the method that Dave sent us
with regards the bypassing the "orangy mask" of the film.
The orange mask isn't just about color, it's also about contrast. The best solution is a software app that is
specifically designed for the purpose, as is scanning software, used in conjunction with an ICC color profile for the
film. This old comparison I did is still valid for showing that proper conversion is about more than just color, but
also contrast. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/VuesProf/>
There is also ColorPerfect, which claims to get color right using film characteristics from spec sheets. It includes
this film, the third version of Portra 160 before NC/VC. I've not tried it. <http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html>
Ramblin' 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/
|