Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Here's some actual OM film images... the first I've taken in a very long
> time. This is my walk through the cypress swamp behind Clyde Butcher's Big
> Cypress Gallery on Feb. 15. OM-1 with 28/2.8 for all ...
>
> Also, the film was the only ISO 400 film I had available, Kodak Portra NC.
> Not known for high saturation I was nevertheless underwhelmed by the low
> saturation on the scans. The film was developed and 2MP scans
> put to CD by Wal-Mart which has always been fine the few times I've done it
> in the past.
Welll ... As you say, the good news is that they didn't clip. The bad
news is that they are otherwise terrible scans. I don't know what their
automation thinks it's doing, but it sucks.
> I don't know if it was the processing, the normal low saturation of Portra NC
> or the fact that it was several years out of date... although always stored
> in a freezer.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I've shot a fair amount of Portra NC 160 on people but not so much 400. I
> can't ever recall seeing so little
> contrast or saturation. On the other hand, the histograms from the scans
> perfectly fitted the total curve between min and max. They were fairly easy
> to adjust once I figured out what I had to do.
It should look like 160 NC. One of the whole points of the Portra line
has been consistency of color response across film speed. In theory,
160, 400 and 800 should differ only in graininess, but not anything
else. That has been my experience with 160 and 400 NCs. Stored in the
freezer, it should be OK, I think.
> Anyhow, it took more than the usual amount of adjustments in ACR to introduce
> some (now maybe too much) color.
<rant>
I just don't get it. Folks pay lots of money for PS, then use the fewer
and less complete versions of the PS tools in ACR. Why not just buy
Elements?
</rant>
> Although there's nothing like Moostification yet, not even LCE.
>
Don't bother, unless you get some decent scans. I took a real quick run
at them. I can mostly generate a clue as to what's on the film, but
nothing like a good result. There's sharpening and some sort of
pixelization, perhaps in part from compression. So anything much done to
correct them results in awful artifacts.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/BigSwamp>
> These are just mid-afternoon hurried snapshots enforced by the conditions of
> the walk with a group of people carrying walking staffs and trying to avoid
> tripping over hidden roots and logs and who weren't happy with me if I
> stopped too long.
Story of my photographic life when traveling. :-) Well, my usual
companion(s) are pretty tolerant, but I do often feel a bit rushed.
> I'm not sure there's anything here worthy of scanning for real.
Nothing Earth shattering, but I'll bet 3, 5 ,8, 9 & 10 could look very
good, and the rest at least technically decent, snaps or not. Remember,
it wasn't all that long ago that we were all taking our best work with
such film and equipment.
> But it does contain one of Nathan's senoritas. I'll bet he didn't know she
> leads swamp tours on the side.
> Only her backside is shown to protect her identity. :-)
For backsides, I'm sticking with the jeans in Nathan's last PAW.
> Clyde is shown in the last shot posing beside the "real" image of the one
> whose smaller brother I purchased and had him autograph that day. It's clear
> I also needed a 49mm polarizer.
>
Sure, but it can still look much better than it does. And I only spent a
few seconds on it.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Norcutt/BigSwamp&image=fh000036er_stda.jpg>
Use a decent scanner, use an icc profile, and they will knock your socks
off. :-) I keep posting these examples - and people keep complaining
about wussy scans.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/VuesProf/>
Never Give Up Moose
PS: Heck, if you don't think it's worth it to fuss with further, send
the film to me, and I'll scan it. I'm betting at least a couple of them
will be really delicious.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
