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]

[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400  Petru Lauric (petru.lauric@rcn.com)

> That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich,
> very dense.
> When I did some informal tests with my Polaroid SS4000 I was impressed
> with the Provia 400F scans - very good color reproduction and low grain.
> My 400 speed negs weren't that spectacular.

...but you *can* produce scans from negs which look as saturated and punchy
as scans from slides. Either way is just R, G & B 0-255. With slide you
discard a lot of image information at the shooting stage, with colour neg
you defer those decisions until working on the scan and have a whole new
degree of freedom not to mention endless second chances when you decide you
got it wrong.

Slide often forces you to sacrifice either shadow and/or highlight detail.
With neg, you can if you wish retain both, by combining (say) an image
which has good shadows and midtone separation but blown highlights, with
one where you mask off the image apart from the highlights then adjust for
those. This works absurdly well, is not difficult, and enables informal
photography of subjects which would be impossible on tranny without an
array of studio flash fill-in.

Best done in 16bit/ch though, if you don't want a histogram that looks like
a dog comb.


Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.