The scanner may also be at fault as well. If it is a Nikon scanner, there
is a well-known problem of grain "aliasing" with those scanners. My former
Nikon scanner produced disappointing results with faster films. The
Polaroid SS4000 is much better.
But I also agree that 400 ASA print film hits a wall at about 5x7
enlargement for me. If one wants to get the best out of scanners and, say,
inkjet printers, one should stick with print films of the 100 ASA ilk or
slower, or slide no faster than 200 ASA, of which Pro Ektachrome E200 is
about the best I have come across.
Joel W.
At 11:02 AM 1/14/2002 +0000, you wrote:
Sometimes Albert, I find a lovely photo which scans really well, many
times not so. Perhaps it is not that your scanning has exposed a
particularly grainy film, but that your negative is underexposed. Is this
possible?
Also, as Roger suggest, if you view the image at the right size you may be
less disappointed.
I nearly always come to the conclusion, when viewing a poor image, that it
was my ineptitude that caused it to be so. If only I could remember *all*
the lessons from poor photos ;-).
Chris
At 00:47 -0800 14/1/02, Olympus wrote:
I just recently bought a film scanner... I have almost always taken pics
with 400 speed film; (Fuji Superia400) and have always liked the saturation,
and the 2 extra stops plus a fast lens like the 50mm/1.8 allows me to do
indoors pretty well without a flash.. But, with the purchase of a film
scanner, I've been more than unhappy with the grainyness... 4x6's aren't
bad at all, but when scanned at 2700dpi, the grain is very visable.
< 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 >
|