Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] How to Capture subtle colors

Subject: Re: [OM] How to Capture subtle colors
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:32:27 -0700
Chris Barker wrote:

At 01:42 -0700 16/9/02, dreammoose wrote:

Remember the original question: Why is the subtle color change at the end of the petals of this flower missing in the photos? The question related to regular consumer 4x6 prints (where Clendon(?) already found the color lacking) scanned on a flat bed. I was exploring the contribution of the process used vs. direct scanning of the film on a film scanner. In that context, I believe the experiment found out where the color most likely went. A number of the comments remarked on contrast problems, 'blown-out highlights', etc. I believe the answer to those issues lies in the same place.

Yes, I had forgotten about that, and it is a good answer to the original question.

Thanks

Your explanation for the contrast problem may be the case, although I think it's at least partly due to the print, too, as I have the advantage of having it here in front of me. It doesn't seem to me to be just loss of contrast, but loss of both the high and low end of density and loss of subtlety of tonal graduation. I picked the brighter part of the picture for the specific purpose of the test. Darker areas of the print have better apparent sharpness and better tonal graduation.

It would seem that a print is "optimised" for viewing, not for scanning.

There is no business reason for designing paper or printing machines that can present sharpness greater than the users can see/will notice. Nor would there be any reason for buyers to pay for resolution beyond what they need. Anybody know what the lppm capability of color print paper is? This stuff is finely tuned to the cost and to consumer demand/expectations. I usually get my film developed and printed at a 'real' photography shop, with Kodak Royal and Fuji Premium processing with one day turnaround. They always point out that the Fuji prints will last forever, but I somehow prefer the overall look of the Kodak prints. Maybe the Fujis are a bit too cool?

I recently tried Kodak processing through a drug store. It was quite a bit cheaper, with free double prints, and took three days. But the real difference was in the prints and the way the negs were returned. The color saturation was startling, rather unrealistic, but sort of eye-catchingly brilliant. They are sort of like soft drink and beer commercial depictions of days at the beach, everything is brighter, better and more fun and everyone is funnier, better looking, smarter, sexier, etc. than any day at the beach I've ever experienced.

Obviously, the product is tuned to the major buyers. Many of the pics were flowers, and boy do they look great, maybe even better than the originals! I was thinking "great" I can take Protra NC in, get non washed out looking prints and have all the advantages of wide tonal range in the negs. But wait, the negs aren't in sleeves, they are glued into these cardboard edged thingys with very thin plastic over the film (so reprints can be done directly through the holder?). Can I get them out for scanning without damage? Well, yes, but the sprocket area on one edge is still sticky so they sort of stick to the holder and later stick in the sleeves. I guess this isn't a useful option for me.

As to focus, the 4x6 print looks pretty sharp viewed in the usual way, 10-12" from the eye - and I have 20-10 corrected vision in one eye. The image on my screen is about 6x the size of the 4x6 print, or the equivalent of viewing a 24x26" print close-up, a pretty tall order for enlargement from a consumer print. I believe some of the softness may be focus in the printing machine, but that most is simply resolution limitation in the print emulsion; certainly the original neg is sharp. Now that I've calculated the effective size, I'm pretty impressed with the film, lens and scanner performance. I forgot to mention the film before. Kodak Gold 400-3, not a film I'm familiar with, it just came in a box of other film as a bonus, but certainly not a known superfilm.

Perhaps the flatbed scanner is not focussing properly on the print; is that possible?

I don't think so. The scanner is nothing fancy, but I've used it for all kinds of things for years and never had a problem with focus. Also, at least most of the lack of real sharpness is apparent looking at the print through a loupe. The thing is, even through the loupe, it doesn't look 'that bad' and is easily attributable to lens (3rd party, wide open), shutter speed (300mm resting on a car window at 1/60 or 1/125! Puleeze!), film (cheap, fast, consumer stuff. Ick!). Not 'that bad', that is, until I compare it to the original negative, and that only via a 2700dpi scanner, not even 4000dpi!

I'm going to try some more comparisons, when I have time and inclination. Anybody else?

Moose


< 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