[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Hawaii recommendations (another travel kit..)

Subject: Re: [OM] Hawaii recommendations (another travel kit..)
From: "Richard F. Man" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:50:33 -0800
Possibly depending on the vintage too. I just scanned in some Gold 200 of the kids that we took about 6 years ago, and the grain is the size of the eyeball. 4x6 prints are OK, but anything over that is useful. I recall similar grain characteristic from 400/800 of that era.

I know for a fact that the current 800 films, Kodak and Fuji, have less grain than that.

At 02:49 PM 10/31/2002 -0800, Moose wrote:
Although I have only used it once, I would certainly not call it grainy. At <http://home.attbi.com/0.000000E+00dreammoose/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-322698.html> , look at the right side direct film scan. On my 19" screen, this is the equivalent of a 20x30" print and the granularity is quite modest for 20x enlargement. This is Kodak Gold 400-3 film. My scan is at 2720dpi with a diffuse light source (Canoscan FS2710). Perhaps the particular granularity of Gold 400 works poorly with your Nikon 4000dpi, collimated light source scanner, producing the dreaded 'grain aliasing'?

I'm not recommending Gold 400. I use Supra and Portra NC in 400 speed. However, this freebie roll I shot is just not 'extremely grainy'.


// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com> <http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site.
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]

< 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