[LRflex] Re: An Observation on Film & Print Scans
- From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:08:01 -0800
At 2/25/2010, you wrote:
>Hello Group,
> I have had occassion to bump into a fair number of online images
> produced from Analog Methods recently and I am observing something
> of a sense to them I wanted to ask if others here have noticed it.
> What's caught my attention is that within a goodly share of images
> is the distinct feeling I am looking at an image 2 or 3 steps
> removed from the original. Like it's a copy of a copy sort of
> effect where the image itself feels very two dimensional even when
> the scene portrayed has great depth to it visually and/or was taken
> with a wide angle lens, but it has acquired the sense it was shot
> with a long tele lens.
> It is very much like the experience I used to get 'back in the
> day' attempting to get prints made of slides by ordering
> inter-neg's of the slide itself. I became quite quite aware of the
> multiple generations of lenses and processes between the scene I
> remembered and the print which ultimately came about.
> It isn't a universal quality I've seen to the posted images so
> maybe it is an artifact from Bad Film? Bad Processing? or Bad
> Scanning? Maybe all of the above. I do know that I've gotten
> stunning scans off 120 & 35mm films from Allied Photographic &
> Imaging - see my 'Shining Through' Post for example. I have gotten
> decent film scans myself off an epson 4870 flatbed and universally
> 'flat' copy of a copy sensibilities scanning prints with it.
>Anyway - That's my 2 Cents (us), .02 Euros?, 3 cents (Canadian), 1
>shilling, 10 yen, :-)
>
>Richard in Michigan
God Morning, Richard!
I suspect that the "issues" your seeing, are due to poor scanning. I
scan my slides & negs with a Nikon Coolscan V. At 4000dpi that
works out to 4000x6000 or 24mp.
I have any number of 12x18" digital prints on my walls, made from
scanned slides & negs, this way, and quality is so good, I cannot
tell them from the originals. Actually, that's not quite
true. Because most of the originals are a wee bit faded, I can
"spruce them up" in GIMP, and they often look a wee bit better than
the originals (at least, at this point in time!).
Many, if not most, of the scans seen on the web, of silver images,
are either low-res "drugstore" scans, or those made on a flatbed,
often from prints. OK, but not magnificent.
Cheers!
---
David Young
Logan Lake, Canada.
Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net
Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net
A micro-finance lender though http://www.kiva.org
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
