om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Moose,
>
>Have you thought of having some of these test frames rescanned with another
>scanner model, to make sure that the scanner methodology isn't
>over-accentuating the grain?
>
I have indeed thought of that. From a practical standpoint, I only have
one other roll of Vista 200 to shoot, and it's nice in some ways, but
doesn't knock me out, so further investigation isn't very
productive/sensible. On the other hand, I would like to know as much as
possible about this scanning business, as I've still got a lot of older
stuff to scan, of all sorts of ages and graininess.
I still have my FS2710, all nicely back in its original box and ready to
put up for sale. I've been thinking about reattaching it and trying the
lower native hardware resolution of 2720 dpi to see if that changes
anything. Should do if the problem is aliasing.
Another possibility is digging out the old microscope. It isn't much,
but should do for this. I am a bit concerned about scratching film with
all the handling, but outtakes should be fine for the purpose. There
used to be a high quality microscope in the house, but it left a few
years ago with the biologist it belonged to.
Moose
>It also looks like the scanner isn't doing very well in the shadows, which
>appear noisy.
>
>
I think that is the film, but am not sure. Much color neg has an extra
1+ stop of latitude on the low end, but the grain picks up. An
equipment failure (bent tab on back of lens) gave me some underexposed
negs some months ago. The scanner was able to bring up a pretty good
image, but the grain was much greater than on other parts of the roll. I
could be wrong though. So much to try, so much to learn....
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|