Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust



I tried Superia 200 and 400 and they were both grainy - the 400 moreso.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust


> I tried Kodak Supra 400 and was disappointed - too much grain, probably
> because it was the 400 speed.  I have not tried the Supra 100.
>
> I did like the results of Fuji Superia 100, though - good color and
> comparatively less grain.
>
> Maris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Honemann" <danh@selectsa.com>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:08 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
>
>
> | What are the best color and b&w films in terms of scanning?  From what
> I've
> | read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color,
and
> | the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) for b&w.  Are there
others?
> |
> | Also, if one is planning ultimately to scan and maintain files in
digital
> | format (and print from there), are there any advantages left to shooting
> | transparencies as opposed to negatives--given that the latter has so
much
> | more exposure latitude?  Or does the finer resolution of slide film
still
> | make this the preferred emulsion when scanning?
> |
> | Dan
> |
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.