I can 'see' just what you mean, AG - the two images that CH posted last week
(one E-1 and one OM) I think showed something similar. Looking at the blue
sky, there was grain aplenty in the film image, but the digital image had
recognisable 'steps' in the sky tone. OTOH the digital image did not appear
to be of lower definition, and was very impressive ... but it didn't have
the subtlety of the film image.
Additionally, I wonder if the increased depth of field in a digital image
(related both to focal length and typical maximum aperture) plays any part
in this phenomenon.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of AG Schnozz
Sent: 17 September 2004 16:42
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: What's missing?
> Are you printing Inkjet? I was not sure by your post. Digital editing?
Yes. However scanned 35mm has an entirely different "look" in the final
print. You can almost step into the 35mm pictures.
Less crisp (scanner's fault), but more oomph. Kinda like adding a subwoofer
to your stereo system.
As I look at several pictures, I'm noticing something about the greens. With
Velvia, greens will transition to black, but with digital you have greens
and you have blacks, but the two don't meld together--low level greens
appear about one zone too high.
This could explain why I seem to always need to burn down green backgrounds.
The greens also seem to have too much yellow in them.
> And are you proposing an Orton type technique to pull back the
> 3-dness?
I'm not familiar with that.
AG
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|