Actually, I think the scans look pretty good. If you check the
histograms they've all been done so as to preserve the highlights and
only the darker shadows are lost if the the dynamic range is too high.
Doing better I think would require some sort of HDR technique. It could
also be that the shadow detail simply isn't on the film but I have no
was to assess that. The exception to this image goodness is the image
of the bird. It has a very good histogram but shows some sort of bright
artifacts around the edge of the breast and elsewhere where there are
strong contrasts between dark and light. But it could be these were
introduced during downsizing and sharpening. Check the original scan to
see if it's there too.
Some of the shots can be improved a bit with a little post processing
adjustment of shadows and highlights but most all of the image
brightness data is there for you to work with.
Chuck Norcutt
Brent wrote:
> Got some photos back today from the OM-10, film had been in there a
> while.
>
> San Francisco electronic music festival, and some local shots, my 2
> year old, etc. A couple trying out the new 17mm Vivitar I got
> recently - never had a lens this wide before - it doesn't seem
> perfect, but it's fun.
>
> http://phogra.com/g/v/OM10_OctNov2008/
>
> Was very unimpressed with the scanning. None of the places around
> where I work (central Sydney), seem to do a good job. :(
>
> Look okay at low res though I think
>
> Brent
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1814 - Release Date: 11/26/2008
> 8:53 PM
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|