On 02/07/07, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Moose makes an important point here. A properly scanned image will have
> rather low contrast and look rather flat. It's up to post processing to
> give it some snap.
Actually Chuck, from normal view, the image looks a bit underexposed. It's a
weatherboard Java-architecture house and the wood panels look darkish.
K.
Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>
> > - In my experience, Chuck is right, even a quite modest flatbed is
> > capable of capturing all the detail and tonal range that these old
> > contact prints hold. That is NOT to say that suitable scanner software
> > settings and post processing can't vastly improve the visible detail and
> > overall appearance of some such old images. LCE and Curves can sometimes
> > work what appears to be magic in revealing detail not apparent on print
> > or original scan. Other times - well, sometimes there just isn't much
> there.
> >
> > My guess is that an old 6x6 contact print from a Brownie may simply not
> > have much to reveal.
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people" - Emily
Cox
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|