Jonas Otter wrote:
>Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree it's not a particularly good scan - but hashed? As I pointed out
>>in my reply, all the dynamic range is there. And sharpness is all the
>>size of the scan can carry. It's a little washed out, but that's better
>>than too contrasty with highlights and shadows gone. At least everything
>>is there and can be rearranged
>><http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Eau.htm>.
>>
>>
>Moose,
>
>That does make a difference! What did you do to it?
>
>
Since it is 8 bit, I first converted it to 16 bit. Even though no more
data is created by doing this, it makes adjustments work better. With
only the 256 brightnes levesl per color of 8 bit, any adjustments that
stretch or compress any part of the dynamic range cause 'holes',
possible levels that are empty, and 'piles', where the same level is
doubled, or more. So you can't do much before the image starts to look
weird, or overprocessed, or whatever. It gets converted back at the end.
All this talk takes about a second to do.
I don't remember exactly what I did in detail, 'cause I did pretty much
what I would do with any similar image. A pinch of LCE, a dash of
Shadow/Highlight, a smidgen of Curves.... I have actions set for most
of my favorite adjustments, so it goes pretty fast.
>I have yet to learn all the Photoshop tweaking stuff; I doubt I will put lots
>of effort into it since I spend most of my time fighting computers for a
>living, and recreation for me is doing something completely different, such as
>getting better at old-fashioned physical darkroom work.
>
>
Makes sense to me. I enjoy it. And once I learned a little of what I ws
doing, it became fairly fast.
>Concerning the cost of the scanning, what annoyed me was that a) they did not
>ask me whether I wanted the low-resolution option I got or the high-resolution
>one; so I simply assumed I would get scans filling the CD, which would have
>given me at least 10 MB scans of each image, and b) at the rate they charged
>me, scanning 8 films would cost me the same as a new Canon 8400F scanner.
>
>
Well, with almost double that amount in the fridge, maybe you should go
for the 9950F. The 8400 is cheaper, but scans only 4 slides at a time
vs. 12 for the 9950F and 2 strips of negs vs. 5 for the 9950F. I don't
thinks the 3200 vs. 4800 dpi is as big a deal as the film capacity.
>Just for comparison, my scan cost me the same as
>6.35 US gals of unleaded petrol
>50 mins work by a carpenter/plumber/electrician
>30 mins work by a software consultant
>a 3-course dinner at a good restaurant
>2 hours' average pay for a 25 year old female employee in private enterprise
>
>
The relationships of those are different over here.
Pretty expensive. Have you investigated alternatives?
>Scans of negative colour films were considerably cheaper,
>
That's all I've had done. I don't know what slides cost here. A two CD
scan of 36 negs at two resolutions, the higher one being a 2000x3000
pixel uncompressed bitmap costs $15, but they aren't always good and
never as good as my own scans.
>but as I said having the 14 unprocessed films in my fridge scanned would cost
>more than buying a scanner, to say nothing of the dozens of over 40-year-old
>films I have from previous generations of my family. Also, they could not scan
>or even print a colour 120 film I had, obviously their shiny new digital lab
>cannot scan medium format films. My only option of ever having that film
>printed is to scan it myself and have the scans printed (not expensive at all)
>or having it scanned by some pro lab.
>
>
Well, even the 8400 will do 120. And the 9950F will do more of it at
once....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|