At 11:21 3/3/02, Brian Swale wrote:
Hello folks.
I finally got a print from my Zuiko 300 4.5 that I am content with. I have
uploaded a scan to view; it has little of the fine detail that the 6x4
print has.
Go to < http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/photography/ >
and take the top link. More explanation on the page if you can stand it <g>.
An interesting composition and some nice subject material. Using a tripod
with the 300mm is very nearly essential, but I can appreciate the necessity
to work quickly around sunrise (been there, done that).
Two things stand out about the technical aspect of creating the digital image:
(1) It's a GIF. As I understand GIF images and their information content
limitations, it might be better if you can use a JPEG for photographs
instead (GIF's are usually line art and diagrams).
(2) If I understood your description correctly, the print you scanned is a
digital made by the lab scanning the negative. Your scan of the print
would make your GIF web image a digital scan of a digital scan. I suspect
this may be a major part of your troubles in making a web image you're
satisfied with.
If you have a loupe, look at your digital 4x6 print with it. Then use the
loupe to compare to a decently sharp 4x6 that was "optically" printed from
the negative. Most digital prints "fall apart" when magnified with a loupe
even thought they're fine when viewed without magnfication. 4x6's printed
optically from fine grain film, if they're decently sharp, escpecially high
gloss finish, will not fall apart under magnification like digital prints
often do. The optical prints almost always contain much more information
than can be seen without magnification. A flatbed can pick up this
information in a relatively hi-res scan.
Just some thoughts. BTW, the GIF has sort of a "painting" look to it;
interesting.
-- John
< 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 >
|