Well, I'm glad I was wrong! Makes my want an E-camera after all! I was
going on the sheer visual impact of the images, rather that thinking
thru what the process was to get the images to my monitor. Glad to be
a student, that's why I'm here. :-)
--
jv
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Wayne Harridge
<wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all your observations and comments on this one.
>
> Most of you got it right, group-a was shot with the E-510, group-b with the
> RB-67. By the way the E-510 shot was with the cheap kit 14-42 not the 14-54
> ! Now a bit more info on the RB/50 shot, I checked the neg on the light box
> and it's not as sharp as I normally get with this combination but I normally
> have it on a tripod, I suspect it's not a DOF problem as it doesn't seem to
> be sharp anywhere in the frame so I guess it must be slight camera movement.
> I believe also that the V700 never produces a critically sharp scan anyhow
> with the supplied film holders (the 120/220 negs tend to sag under their own
> weight), wet mounting would probably fix that but life's too short. In post
> processing I bumped up the saturation and contrast of the film scan to get
> closer to the E-510 image, the original scan had a lot more shadow detail
> than the E-510, I presume that's due to the toe in the film characteristics.
> The film colour balance isn't right, I didn't spend any time on this, just
> selected a spot I thought should be grey for Paintshop Pro to do the colour
> balance, I'm not sure how much work would be required to get it closer to
> the E-510 result.
>
> ...Wayne
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|