> Was interested to read this. It goes against my experience. When I was
> shooting regularly, one client needed color for a 4 color publication. I
> found the best situation was to shoot Kodak Portra 160NC. I would either have
> it scanned at the lab where processed or scan myself on a Minolta 6x6
> scanner. I got a much better result with a greater dynamic range, and all in
> all it was easier to scan than chromes.
The Kodak Portra films are certainly the biggest exception I can think
of. It's really hard to get consistent scans and keep the curves of
all the layers synchronized. The current non-NC/VC Portra films are
engineered for the digitization process and are superior to just about
every other film, including reversal films.
Of the reversal films, I get the best results from Provia 100F, in
regards to color, but Velvia 100 (not 100F) for sharpness. I've never
liked the way 100F blobs out from lateral halation.
Probably the most difficult film ever made when it comes to getting
colors correct in scans is Kodak Ektar 100.
AG (can I just ignore the 25 years of pictures I took before digital?) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|