I'm beginning to wonder if the "consumer" scanners are set up for the
consumer films and that Supra might be designed for PhotoCD's?
Both Qualex PictureCD's and a pro lab's PhotoCD's are a whole different
ball game from the C prints rendered by the same film, regardless of what
film I've had scanned. The raw scans have never been an acceptable image
in color balance, contrast or saturation. They require some form of
adjusting all three with digital imaging software that allows the user to
control exactly how much of each to tweak them with. A single "Fix My Pic"
button doesn't cut it!
-- John
At 12:46 10/28/00 , Tom Scales wrote:
>I've been trying the Supra as it's touted as 'designed for scanning', but I
>don't like it at all. The 100 and 400 are ok, but take a lot of color work
>to look natural, much more than the cheap fuji consumer film I've been
>using. The Supra 800 is downright awful...so grainy the pictures are
>useless. I'm back to the Fuji I can buy at the Walmart.
>
>All shot with my 4T, of course.
>
>Tom
>
>From: "Gary Reese" <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> My take on recent comments:
>>
>> Kodak Supra 100 negs come out the worst of any film in scans on my
>> original HP PhotoSmart Photo Scanner. Without the software Tom Scales
>> always suggests, you can't tweak the HP software for the emulsion type.
>> FWIW, Fujicolor 100 (I think HG Super) comes out the best, closely
>> followed by Kodak Gold 100.
>>
>> ProviaF is touted by Fuji as middle ground between the enhanced
>> saturation of Velvia and the neutrality of Astia.
>>
>> Gary Reese
>> Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|