Joel Wilcox wrote:
>At 05:11 PM 5/9/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>Since I am certainly never going to choose to have a color darkroom, my
>>personal tests are for use with a digital darkroom and digital printer.
>>I'm not satisfied I have given film scanning it's best shot yet, but I
>>think my overall approach is reasonable for my chosen presentation media.
>>
>>Moose
>>
>>
>
>I liked your tests quite a bit, Moose. I don't really know what to make of
>them.
>
Nor do I, in some ways, but it's been fun and stirred things up a bit ;-o
>I see things I like in both media. Some of them Ag Schnozz has
>already summarized better than I could have (I hate it when he does that),
>but I do like how digital greens are rendered, for some reason.
>
I am so focused on grain, detail, resolution and contrast, that I
haven't really peen paying careful attention to color.
>I like textures in film.
>
>
I like the choice, some grain for some shots and creamy smooth for some
others. But I can't go from noisy to smooth without losing some detail
resolution and I can simply scan a blank frame of film for grain to add
to a grainless shot. So, on balance, I like less grain/noise.
>One apparent difference in taste between us is that I apparently like a
>little noise. I have literally never used NR software on any E-1
>photograph that I have printed of any size (I can print up to 11 x 14 on my
>Photo EX). That's not extraordinarily large and I also rarely shoot even
>at ISO 400, let alone 800 or 1600.
>
And that's why you don't need NR. I don't have an E-1, but I've seen
direct comparisons with a camera I do have, and the noise at 800 is over
the top for me.
>I have used some NR on some web images
>and some grossly underexposed but otherwise important family photographs
>that my wife has made with her Stylus 410. Acts of desperation, really.
>
>I have seen some NR that makes the output look like a color by numbers
>painting. Your enlarged digital versions look at bit like that to me.
>
Yes, it's interesting that the upsampled one is that way on this sample
shot. In the upsampling comparison I did before, that effect isn't
apparent <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/resize.htm>. I need to
learn more. Probably depends on the detail/texture of the specific
subject area.
>But at normal sizes they look great, which I think is where it counts.
>
>Thanks again for the comparisons.
>
>
More to come, I think, as I haven't answered all my own questions yet. I
just started looking at some Royal Gold 400 I shot on the same trip and
the grain in the scans is less than the Vista 200. This either means
that Vista is pretty grainy or that some aliasing thing is going on. The
grain in the RG 400 is about what I remember from scanning it in the
past with a 2720 dpi scanner.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|