All I am saying is that your scan does not look much different than the
scans on Tony Sleep's site in which almost all have an unnatural color
cast to the portrait part. I would guess that if you projected the
slide the woman's face would not look natural either. Apparently from
the site the color bands are effective in judging differences in
response between scanners. He apparently uses the face for evaluating
fine detail.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Jun 10, 2004, at 3:02 AM, James Royall wrote:
>
>
> From: James Royall <royalljames@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 10 June 2004 09:30:40 BST
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re: [OT} Scanning was Re: My first portrait with E1
>
> It's funny, I thought that choosing the scan target would be the
> perfect test, but Winsor thinks it not worthwhile for checking colour
> balance and you doubt its sharpness. ;)
>
> As for a microscope, I think the highest magnification I have is either
> a loupe or a linen counter.
>
> James
>
>
> On 10 Jun 2004, at 05:02, Moose wrote:
>
>> To evaluate sharpness, I think you need to use something other than a
>> mass produced slide designed for color control. It is entirely likely
>> that the original slide isn't all that sharp. Kodak isn't spending a
>> lot
>> of extra effort and cost on something that isn't part of the product.
>> They have other products for that. If you have a decent microscope,
>> you
>> could check the slide itself.
>>
>> Moose
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|