Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: My personal Film vs. Digital tests - I

Subject: [OM] Re: My personal Film vs. Digital tests - I
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:08:02 -0700
ScottGee1 wrote:

>Yikes!  A couple questions come immediately to mind:
>
> - How was the film processed?
>  
>
Regular old C-41 at a very reliable place famous for the quality of its 
processing and printing. They don't look particularly different than 
other film I have scanned.

> - Which scanner did you use and at what resolution?
>  
>
As it says on the web page, Canon FS4000 at 4000 dpi

>Also, did you have a 'traditional' print made from the film?  If so,
>was it as grainy?  I set off 'traditional' in that sentence because
>most labs no longer print from negatives, but rather scan them and
>print from that file.
>  
>
No, I didn't have a traditional print made. I find regular 4x6 prints to 
be quite a bit poorer in resolution, contrast, dynamic range and color 
than a good film scanner image. Here's a comparison I posted some time 
ago <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/PrintvsScan/ScanvsPrint.htm>.

>I recently had my lab scan entire rolls AND make traditional prints. 
>The scanned images are quite grainy, the prints, however, are not.
>  
>
As you can see in the above page, the print does indeed have no grain, 
but when enlarged, it also has much less detail than the film scan. The 
two are related. :-)       The 2000x3000 dpi scans I have had made when 
having film developed are lower quality than those from the FS2710 and 
FS4000, not only in pixel count, but in detail resolved, color, 
contrast, etc.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz