Andrew Gullen wrote:
>on 2006/01/27 4:57 AM, swisspace at swisspace@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
>>Here is an example of the problem I am having with kodachrome - scanned
>>with canoscan 2700F
>>
>>http://thattimeoflife.smugmug.com/photos/54049769-M-1.jpg
>>
>>
>
>This looks OK - what does the original slide look like? This looks like some
>of the Kodachromes I've got when I shot in low light that wasn't
>daylight-balanced (e.g., due to surrounding reflective surfaces). The
>combination of off-white light and underexposure isn't kind to it.
>
>That said, it's not a bad shot - it looks like a workshop with soft window
>light, and if that's what it is, maybe there's no problem. You couldn't
>raise the exposure without burning out the boy's arm.
>
>
The scan is ok in the sense that essentially the whole tonal range is
there; only a tiny bit of clipped highlights. The problem is largely
that the tones are poorly distributed. It is a tough image, with the
face in shadow and the very bright arm right next to it. It certainly is
possible to rearrange things so that it looks muck more colorful,
contrasty and Kodachromey
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Swissboy.htm>. The shadows
are noisy enough that they can't be brought up too much.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
