Dan wrote:
>I'm new to this, but common sense tells me that scanning, like an enlarger,
>cannot possibly pull detail out of shadows that isn't there on the negative
>in the first place.
That logic is impossible to question, but it may also depend on what the
detail is, and who's looking for it. I've seen evidence for both cases.
Some old photos, shot with very slow lenses and even slower film, show an
incredible amount of detail. Some modern high-contrast films, even when shot
with the best of lenses, seem to blot out the differences. Are the details
there? I don't know. I can get them out of "slow" film with a scanner, but
often not out of "fast" film without a lot more work. My thinking is that
the detail is *there* but not readily accessible. And probably, sometimes,
it just isn't there at all.
What's a mother to do? ;-)
Best regards--LRA
Orignal Msg:
>
> > Question: Does the same principle of "opening up the shadow
> > details" work with scanned negatives? In asking this, I am aware
> > of the manipulations that can be done with shadow details with
> > PhotoShop, et al....which are certainly easier to do than with
> > the conventional dodging techniques in photographic enlarging.
>
>I'm new to this, but common sense tells me that scanning, like an enlarger,
>cannot possibly pull detail out of shadows that isn't there on the negative
>in the first place.
>
>The Leica Noctilux (50/f1) lens is reputed to have this quality: it can put
>shadow details onto film that are often not seen at the time of the shot.
>Once the shadow detail is there, it's then a matter of finding the right
>h/w
>s/w combination to pull them into the digitized file. Popular
>Photography's
>latest review (yes, I know, Pop Photo has long been a bastion of rigorous
>testing <g>) awards the Polaroid SS 120 top honors in this department.
>
>Dan
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
