On 30 Dec 2002 23:55:44 -0000
owner-olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (olympus-digest) wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:13:38 -0500
> From: William Clark <wclark@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo
> weighs in
>
> I would disagree with scanning negatives. Who wants to wait and wait
> for 30 meg files to scan, then dust and scratch removal, then
> photoshop, and on we go. If I were to scan, I would scan slides,
> which the Epson 2450 does beautifully. You save $ and time with a
> film scanner. People will use digcams to get rid of teh intermediary
> scanning steps...I sure do.
>
> - -Bill
For me, scanning isn't so painful.
My Nikon 4000 takes care of cleaning up dust and scratches while
scanning, through its infrared channel (Actually there is a rare slide
that crops up that it doesn't handle well and then I will have to get my
hands dirty).
Also, I find I don't need to "manipulate" the scan very often. This
includes adjusting the Levels or Curves in photoshop. The times, I do
need to make adjustments, are either because:
(In order of frequency)
I screwed up the exposure
The resultant scan had color or contrast issues
Something about the slide itself didn't capture what I recalled from the
shoot.
However, as I tend to print large images, my source files, from the
scans, are more in the 120M range. I guess this also gives me more
incentive to get the exposures and scans correct from the start so there
is less need to fix them in photoshop.
[snip]
Tal
--
Tal Lancaster
talrmr@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.renderman.org/RMR
< 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 >
|