Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Scan issue

Subject: Re: [OM] Scan issue
From: "Walters, Martin" <Martin.Walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:23:30 -0400
Chuck:
Yep, my error. I should not have used the DPI figure. Anyway, JPEG size
is 1544x1024 (The Costco scans were 3087x2048). This last batch from
Walmart include some with both deepish shade and bright sky, and others
at dusk or night. For some on the roll, I'd shot at 800 ASA (Portra
400), to get extra shutter speed and to see how good the latitude really
is. I suspect these will need more specific PP. In all, this batch is
not as good as some others (including nighttime photos) I have had done
by them. I'm resigned to looking at the scans as proofs only. I'll
rescan those that merit it.


Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Scan issue

I don't doubt that the image might be tagged with a 72dpi measure but if
that's the case the number is meaningless.  Resolution expressed as dpi
is an output print resolution measure and can be set to anything you
want it to be.  What's been tagged on the image is a common number
(related to old color CRT screen resolution) but is actually totally
arbitrary.  It bears no relationship at all to actual information
content.  The real question is what are the image dimensions in pixels. 
  My guess is that you'll find them to be at least 1200x1800.  That
would be the scan resolution** they'd use for 4x6" prints.

Of course, even if the pixel dimensions are higher than that, it still
doesn't fix the blown highlights.  I'm a bit surprised.  It's been a
couple of years but I've had film developed and scanned at Walmart and
I've always gotten very nice expose to the right histograms.

** See.  I've already done it myself... used "resolution" (which means
pixels or dots per unit of measure) when the correct word here is
"dimensions".  I think we all do it and sometimes get ourselves
confused.  Actually, I'm not even sure "dimensions" is the correct term
for something that's not a unit of distance.

Chuck Norcutt


On 9/20/2011 7:19 AM, Walters, Martin wrote:
> Just got several rolls back from my local Walmart - probably the only 
> 1-hour lab still functioning here.  Low res scans (72dpi) with what 
> look like blown highlights and/or overly lightened shadows. No real
surprise.
> In the old days, the Costco scans were much better (and higher 
> resolution).
>
>
> Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 10:46 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Scan issue
>
> OK, a little issue with getting files to upload from where I'm at. So,

> I threw them into a quick gallery.
>
> www.zone-10.com/g2
>
> Click on the thumbnails to see the images in more detail.
>
> Four images. A full-frame comparison (resized) of each type of scan. A

> 100% of each type of scan.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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