Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: which slide film?

Subject: [OM] Re: which slide film?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:32:37 -0700
Wayne S wrote:

>You saved me the work of up-sampling and comparing, thanks.
>However...
>
>I think image sharpening at the right viewing distance can make any
>image "appear" better, but in all these examples, the film looks more
>realistic and better to me.
>
Remember, this all started about resolution, not what looks better. C.H. 
has pulled it back from other directions a couple of times before 
talking about relative looks of the 2 media after I did this comparison. 
I didn't try to make anything "appear better" in any artistic sense. I 
just used PS tools to bring up as much detail as possible to make 
resolution comparisons between the 2 media sort of fairish.

>To me the neon sign is not related to spectral sensitivity of digital
>versus film, but simply better resolution in the film shot. The film
>does exhibit some blooming, but my experience with the LS-4000 scanner
>is that the scanner may be the culprit. Only CH can look at the slide
>and tell us for a fact. I had an underexposed RHP (Provia 100) shot of
>a horse with white stripe on the nose. The film showed no blooming, but
>the Nikon scan of the slide did. Again, the film disadvantage is the
>intermediate step of scanning, which introduces its own problems.
>
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. My scanner doesn't do that.

>I'm not sure how much sharpening you applied in these examples, but to
>my eyes it is too much.
>
See above. It's not what I would use for publication.

>Then again, I'm always setting the base and treble to a flat response.
>
Me too.

Moose




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz