Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Scanners & film

Subject: Re: [OM] Scanners & film
From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:37:26 -0600
Phillip,

I see what you are saying and I would have to admit both that negative film
is much easier than slide film to scan and that Kodak emulsions may be
easier than  Fuji's.  I am acceptably lucky with Provia perhaps.  Velvia is
another story, with its idiosyncratic D-max. Nevertheless, I have liked the
coloration of RDPII, so will continue to take my chances with it.  Velvia I
just don't use much anyway.  Sensia II and Astia, which you don't mention,
have been easy targets IMO.

A caveat about negative film: the fact that it is easier to scan does not
necessarily mean that one will like the end result better.  Negative film
inherently shows more grain and when saturation and contrast are optimized
for the final result, this is only made worse, rendering it second best for
some normal landscape work.  Secondly, the same problems with D-max that
affect shadows in slide scanning can affect highlights in negative scans.

I have taken to shooting most important settings with both negative and
positive film if possible.

I've also been tinkering with Mr. Hamrick's VueScan software
(http://www.hamrick.com) for a while.  It gives one the option of
brightening a dark slide and averaging multiple passes on the base scan and
then applying an assortment of profile-like algorithms as "crops" that then
go directly into Photoshop.  It's not a magic bullet, but there are some
advantages and he often gets one closer to the ideal in the first attempt.

The interesting thing is that while VueScan has a profile for many
different types of negative films, including three different versions for
Reala (!), there are only two for slide film:  Kodak and Generic.  Your
comments about Kodak films made me think of this.

The compelling thing about scanning slide film is that you know what the
final image is supposed to look like.  What is Reala supposed to look like
when there are three versions (not to mention what happens from one lab to
the next)?  The best thing about negative film is that I can almost always
do a better job than the lab that makes the C-prints, whatever the result
ought to be like.  I can't ever really nail a slide, but it seem better to
have a Holy Grail than a moving target.

Joel

At 12:48 AM 11/23/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>Garth & Joel,
>
>I agree that both Provia and Velvia shot in close to optimal conditions
>will scan reasonably well on an desktop ccd scanner, however, shoot
>either in an interior with uneven/mixed lighting and shadows or at night
>with mixed lighting (normally used in and around modern buildings) and
>you will see where these films (especially the newer Provia) will go
>nuts on a ccd scanner.  Where as ES100 will scan with much more correct
>colors.  The original Provia emulsions (about 4 or 5 years ago) were
>much easier to scan.  I used to scan medium format Provia on a UMAX
>1200S desktop in 1994 and it worked quite well for evenly lit shoots. 
>However the ES100 or most Ektachromes will scan much more easily on
>these inexpensive scanners.  My comment is designed to help those who
>are having trouble with these scanners.  It seemed like there are many
>complaining about their results with these scanners.  I think using a
>more standard emulsion which was targeted by the software developers
>will always give better result, everything else being equal.  Normally
>one should not have to rely on Photoshop or any other editor to correct
>color.  These scanners are capable of give very good and consistent
>color if used properly.  I'm just suggesting that one try to use the
>most standard emulsion if they are not getting good results before
>trashing their scanner.  Even the best ccd scanners are really very
>limited when compared to a PMT (drum) scanner.  Many of the emulsions
>were really designed to be scanned on a PMT scanner and were never
>expected to be scanned on a ccd. I see that most hobbyist photograhers
>make these mistakes when using the wrong films with these ccd scanners. 
>My personal belief is that most of these scanners just work much better
>with negative films rather than chromes.  
>
>Phillip Franklin


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz