> Only Ken can say what he did, but see this:
> http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/06/14/recreate-the-super-saturated-look-of-fuji-velvia-film-in-photoshop/
> which might answer part of your question.
>> Is Velvia really that saturated or has it had some help?
That's kinda a personal question if you ask me. ;)
But, let's look at it this way. With your digital camera images, do
you ever just leave them as-is, straight-out-of-camera? Before you got
digital cameras, but were digitizing film, did you ever just leave
them as-is?
If I did goose the image, I had to have something there to goose in
the first place.
But, to answer the question, scanning slides usually results in loss
of some saturation and contrast, which needs to be corrected. At issue
is how much correction to do? Do you correct it to return to what you
see with the naked eye on the light-table? Or do you do a "while I'm
at it, I might as well make it better" set of actions? If you are like
me, Moose and a few other people, we jack the sliders around to get an
interpretation that we like.
A film scan is a "raw file" like any raw file from a digital camera.
You get to apply a standardized correction to the image to bring it up
to whatever "normal" look. But you can also get creative and do fancy
stuff to it too. It's like cropping. Is it fair to assume that a
cropped image isn't valid because it wasn't shot that way "in-camera"?
For this image, I added some clarity, vibrance and worked the curves a
little bit to not only correct the scan itself, but give things a
little more impact. But not really all that much. A normal digital
camera file would require a whole lot more than that and who knows
where the colors would have ended up.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|