I don't know yet if the AGFA Vista 200 is just noisy. I've tried
rescanning it at both 2000 and 3200 dpi to see if there is any effect on
apparent grain. If anything, the 4000 dpi scan downsized to 2000 dpi has
very slightly nicer grain than the 2000 dpi scan and the 3200 dpi adds
nothing.
Moving on to the next roll of film, Kodak Royal Gold 400 I'm now am
seeing more of what I expected from film.
The top image is simply an Image I really like from our recent trip.
Just a little way in from the coast, things are very different
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/FvD05.htm>.
The lower images are crops from other pics, more closely framed of the
same bridge with OM-4 and 300D. I wish I'd remembered to set the 300D
iso to 400, but nonetheless, the film certainly holds its own. Please
don't spend time analyzing the color balance differences. There were
moving clouds and the two shots were taken a few minutes apart, so the
light was simply different, and not nearly as nice as for the top shot.
I'm fascinated by how the two are both so similar and yet so different
in many subtle details. For example, the rivets seem just a little
sharper on the digital image on both sides of paint texture that seems
better defined on film. No sky here to look at grain, but other shots
make it clear that the combo of Vista 200 and my scanner is quite a bit
grainier looking than with Royal Gold 400.
In the first comparison, somebody asked about processing. Both these
films were processed at the same time and place, with consecutive roll
numbers, so the grain in Vista has nothing to do with processing.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|