To my eye, 'Havasu05' and 'Havasu10' have a different look than the
others. Better exposures and clearer. The others seem a bit dark and
kind of muddy.
ScottGee1
On 2/10/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> swisspace wrote:
>
> >How brave are you feeling, fancy posting some links to slides
> >(preferably kodachromes) you have posted stating which scanner you used
> >so I can do a full evaluation,
> >
> Alright, here are shots of from the two rolls of film I shot in Havasu
> Canyon in 1970. About half are Kodachrome and the rest are another
> chrome. See if you see any big difference that says one can be scanned
> ok and another not <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/>.
>
> These were scanned a while ago on a Canon FS2710 at 2720 dpi, using
> VueScan. Looking at them now, I think I oversharpened some. Otherwise,
> they look pretty good to me. I've never understood the trouble I hear
> about scanning Kodachrome. I don't know whether I am particularly
> talented and/or lucky in my choice of hardware and software and my
> ability to use them. Whatever combo it may be, scanning various sorts of
> slides just doesn't make any real difference.
>
> Anybody know which is which in these samples? Interesting how things
> change in our lives. Back in 1970, I had a Nikon Ftn with a single lens,
> Nikkor 50/2. Film and processing were expensive, I only had one lens and
> the topography limited the angles of view, so I didn't take very many
> pictures. If I were to go there today for the same length of time, I
> can't imagine coming out with less than hundreds of images. I can
> particularly remember things I could see, and wanted to shoot, but that
> would just be too tiny on film. Not much later, the Nikon went for an
> OM-1, and the second lens was a 1002.8.
>
> Because these are pictures from a classic destination and a classic trip
> in my life, I've just rescanned them with the FS4000 at 4000 dpi. The
> lower falls changed dramatically a few years later when the big
> overhanging mineral deposits fell off. Pixel peeping, 4000 dpi clearly
> pulls a bit more detail out, but you wouldn't see the difference at
> anything less at least a 12x18 print. Other than that, color, contrast,
> etc. are quite comparable, as I would expect with successive models from
> the same maker.
>
> Most of these shots are in direct late May Arizona sunshine, so the
> subjects had a very wide range of brightness. Neither scanner seems to
> have any trouble capturing the full range that is on the film. I'm going
> to be doing some more playing, and may discover other differences, but I
> can already say they will be subtle.
>
> The IR channel of the Kodachromes does show more image detail than is
> usual with other slide films, as one would expect, but it doesn't seem
> to cause any trouble that I can see. Of course, I'm not using ICE or
> FARE, but whatever Ed puts in Vuescan, for dust removal.
>
> If these don't answer you questions, as regards one brand fof film
> scanner, perhaps you could be more specific about what kind of problems
> you are encountering.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|