Well, the scanner brings its own stuff to the process, so it's entirely
possible that a freshly scanned piece of film might look better than a freshly
captured digital file, but then there's post processing to consider. I suppose
I wouldn't jump to any serious conclusions until after I saw images from both
through PP and onto paper.
--Bob Whitmire
www.bobwhitmire.com
On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Maybe I need a Coolscan 9000. My scanned film images elicit no
> overwhelming desire to go back to film. :-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 10/1/2010 3:46 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>> I am in need of a reality check !
>>
>> I have spent many hours this week using a Nikon 9000 Coolscan to scan
>> numerous 35mm slides [K25 and K64] and colour negatives [Portra NC and VC]
>> at high resolution with digital ICE set at normal and saving in TIFF format.
>>
>> All slides and negs were exposed using a Leica M or OM4T.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the on-screen slide and neg scans seem to have a deeper
>> and richer visual ambience than any digital images generated by my E3 and
>> 12-60 lens.
>>
>> Do I need to get my eyes checked or is what I am sensing quite rational and
>> to be expected ?
>>
>> If the latter, I might be drawn back to film again.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|