Moose wrote:
>
> That is your experience. Mine is different. Both types of film scan
> equally well for me. Using Vuescan with its film specific unmasking for
> negative film gives me color balance I find to be just as accurate as
> scanning slides. Of course, we know that slide films all have color
> balances that are different from each other and different, some quite
> different, from what the eye saw in the scene. I am not claiming 'true'
> colors, just no more inaccurate than slide film. My experience with a
> 2700dpi scanner is that grain is about the same, and not a problem at
> any reasonable print size, with either type of film, taking into account
> film speed factors.
>
Even with 2700dpi scanner I can see the grain different at 1:1 (100%)
on monitor. With 4000dpi it is even more, for example the 160NC and
Kodak Gold 100 is quite grainy when scanned. Fuji superia 100 is
better and Fuji Reala may be the smoothest 100 film but it has warn
color balance when scanned. I have tried many many different films. I
have Vuescan for three years, it can balance the color to day light
but it cannot render the actual scene, example magic hour shoot will
be failed in auto color correction. The more creative your work the
more easy you get a wrong color with such auto correction. I don't see
how good the film type in Vuescan work, you can try to use the same
frame of negative and select different film type, I can only see very
little different.
> What do you mean by "accurate"? With slide film, one can compare the
> scanned image to the slide itself to determine the 'accuracy' of the
> scan, but that is simply redefining the source for comparison from the
> original scene to the slide. It is theoretically possible for a scan of
> a neg to be a more accurate representation of the color of the original
> scene than a scan of a slide of the same scene that is true to the
> slide, but not to the scene photographed. Considering that light in the
> 'real ' world is never the same from one moment to the next, this kind
> of stuff could only be meaningfully studied in a highly controlled lab
> setting. Since I'm interested in a photograph that recreates the image I
> have in my mind, I'll skip the lab and go out and smell and photograph
> the flowers.
>
> As I said in my last post, scanning is not cut and dried, but quite
> variable across hardware, software and user.
>
> Moose
>
The word "accurate" is relative, slide is very inaccurate when
compared to DC. But for film comparison, there is no discussion, see
why almost all professional (except news, portrait and wedding) use
slide you will know, especially for product shoots.
C.H.Ling
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
< 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 >
|