Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: What did I do wrong now?

Subject: [OM] Re: What did I do wrong now?
From: Steve & Alicia Goss <stevegoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:41:08 -0500
Moose-
Thank you very much for your efforts. It's a thrill to be Moosterized 
for the first time. And sorry if I've set you up for a string of bad 
jokes with that line.

For the cabin in Independence, CO, you have returned detail in the tree 
limbs that the scanner hid, and detail in the clouds that I can't even 
see in the slide when looking at it through a loupe. Plus the dirt in 
the foreground is the right shade again. The original is not quite that 
green, but it may be more due to the high altitude than a scan problem. 
The town site is high enough that when the town was abandoned one bad 
winter, the townspeople dismantled some of the buildings, built skis, 
and everyone skied down the stagecoach road to Aspen.

For the Crystal mill, The original slide is pretty dark, except for the 
sky and the waterfall. The slide doesn't look to have purple in the 
shadows, but it's tough to tell with the loupe. I think I'll see if I 
can get a better scan.

Thanks, Steve Goss, Dallas Tx usa


Moose wrote:
> Steve & Alicia Goss wrote:
>   
>>  
>> Hi, Y'all-
>>   
>>     
> Hi Steve-
>   
>> Here are two pictures from my vacation. Both are from the same OM4Ti camera, 
>> and both on Kodachrome 64, from the same roll. Both were scanned by Dwayne's 
>> photo when they were processed.
>> I don't remember which lens I was using for 01-025, but 01-039 was done with
>> a 24mm f2.8 at f16 and a circular polarizer, to slow down the shutter as
>> much as possible.
>> 01-025 was hand held, 01-039 was done on a tripod, with the self timer.
>> No flash on 01-025, but I was hand holding a pair of flashes on 01-039. They
>> were pointed toward the building to try to lighten it up a bit. The building
>> looked quite dark compared to the rest of the scene.
>>
>> The main question is what went wrong on 01-039? 01-025 has a sharp scan, but 
>> 01-039 just looks bad. 01-039 does look fairly sharp when it is projected.
>>   
>>     
> First, 039 doesn't look particularly unsharp overall to me. The rocks in 
> the foreground are a bit soft, but that could easily be DOF. F16 or not, 
> that's a pretty deep subject. Assuming it is soft, there are only a 
> limited number of possible causes.
>
> - Lens. Gary's tests show the 24/2.8 to hold up well at f16. Assuming 
> yours is in as good shape as the ones he tested, the lens seems not to 
> be the problem.
>
> - Filter. Gary proved that some filters that look good aren't. Even if 
> yours is fine in that sense, a polarizer introduces 4 additional air to 
> glass surfaces. 'Twere me, I'd do a test with that lens with and without 
> filter.
>
> - Motion blurring. I know it was on a tripod, but motion blurring is 
> still possible if the tripod isn't sturdy and "dead" enough, if there is 
> any breeze, even if the falls cause vibration in the ground. I've also 
> on occasion found motion blurring in foliage from light, unobvious 
> breezes. Falls do cause their own wind.
>
> - Scan. Just because it's Dwayne's doesn't mean it's good. There are a 
> number of other problems that seem likely to be from the scan.
>
>   
>> Independence CO, a ghost town preserved by people from Aspen, CO.
>> http://www.speakeasy.net/~stevegoss/01-025.jpg 
>> <http://www.speakeasy.net/%7Estevegoss/01-025.jpg> [1] 
>>   
>>     
> This scan compresses a lot of highlight and shadow detail into 
> invisibility. Although there are some lost highlights which are probably 
> from the slide, there is more cloud detail than might be apparent. Is 
> the color true to the slide? It doesn't look very "Kodachromy" to me. WB 
> based on the clouds as neutral make it look more like what I expect. 
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Goss/Cabin.htm>
>   
>> The "Crystal Mill", actually a power plant for the mill, which was just to 
>> the right.
>> http://www.speakeasy.net/~stevegoss/01-039.jpg 
>> <http://www.speakeasy.net/%7Estevegoss/01-039.jpg> [2] 
>>   
>>     
> This scan seems to me to be quite poor:
>
> - Where did all that purple in the shadows come from? As with the first 
> scan, I suspect that auto WB was used in the scans - and worked poorly 
> for this shot. Auto WB has to assume that the average of the image is 
> neutral gray. When that isn't the case, it introduces unnatural color 
> casts. I've assumed the rocks in shadow are gray. Again, I can't know 
> how it compares to the slide, but it certainly looks more like 
> Kodachrome to me.
>
> - There is a lot of grain/noise in the shadows. How much of it is from 
> the film and how much from inadequate DMax in the scanning process , I 
> don't know. I wonder is it is contributing to the sense of unsharpness, 
> not only in the obvious building shadows, but in the rocks in the 
> foreground.
>
> - As with the first scan, highlights and shadow are over compressed. 
> Most of the sky is probably gone on film, but spreading the highlights 
> down does a lot for the things silhouetted against the sky and brings a 
> hint of cloud detail. There is a fair amount of shadow detail to be 
> coaxed out. Noise needs to be addressed first, though.
>
> - As with any scan, sharpening is required for best results. It can't be 
> done here before noise reduction without unfortunate results. Looking at 
> it again, I should probably back it off a bit in the foreground rocks. 
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Goss/Mill.htm>
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>   


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz