Fabio Fiorellato wrote:
> ........
> Well, where to start?
>
> I admit I tend to underexpose a bit when shooting slides (no more than a
> third of stop, although) and who doesn't, after all? :)
> .....................
> Unfortunately my scanner is a low-end one (an Epson 3170) and it has proved
> not to be able to resolve, as I would have liked, neither details nor
> shadows: there's quite a difference between what I've got after the scanning
> + postprocessing stuff and the original slides, of course.
>
Quite a number of images I admire on your site. An enjoyable visit!
Whether you have underexposed a little or not, the scanner/software
combination have actually done a good job of capturing most of the tonal
range, they have just distributed it poorly.
Here are some variations in processing of four of your images. I hope
you don't mind <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Fabio/>.
The salt mine and boat are two that I like a lot where much of the tonal
detail was buried down in the bottom. The boat may be overdone for your
taste. I have no idea, of course, what the original slide looked like.
In any case, anything between the two extremes is easily possible.
Polignano a mare is an opposite example, where the upper part looks
overexposed.It's easy to assume either that the film couldn't handle the
brightness range of the scene or that the scanner failed, but almost all
the highlight detail is still there, really only a small amount clipped.
For artistic purposes, I'd probably leave the bottom almost as dark as
the original, but I left it with some visible detail to show it's there
in the scan.
San Rocco, is just to show that those people pics with the subject in
shade are often recoverable. The odd light area on his skin isn't an
artifact. If yo look closely, it's on the origina version too, just os
dark it doesn't show much.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|