If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
35mm negative & slide scans - as good as *ist DS images?
After some going thru my first hundred or so images on the new *ist DS,
my first impressions are that the results are as good if not better than scanned negatives and slides from my older Nikon LS2000 film scanner, especially the darker images. Is this because the negative scan can show much more detail(ie. noise) than most digital shots? That is one thing I notice with the film scans is the "noise", especially in darker images. But I did recently scan (from neg) a bright outdoor shot of my kids that is one of the sharpest images I've seen on my PC, I printed an 8x11.5 of it on my new R300 printer and it is, as far as I can see, every bit as sharp and detailed of a lab print I had done of the same shot. But I also printed a 4x6 from a scanned (neg) indoor shot, and the result is noticeably grainier when comparing it to the lab print of the same pic. So I'm wondering, for home printing am I generally going to get better results from the *ist digitals, or will the 35mm scans be up to the task as well? Perhaps I just need to learn more about PSP or Photoshop? Thoughts or experiences anyone? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GS wrote in news:ma%Wd.11993$KI2.11097@clgrps12:
After some going thru my first hundred or so images on the new *ist DS, my first impressions are that the results are as good if not better than scanned negatives and slides from my older Nikon LS2000 film scanner, especially the darker images. Is this because the negative scan can show much more detail(ie. noise) than most digital shots? That is one thing I notice with the film scans is the "noise", especially in darker images. But I did recently scan (from neg) a bright outdoor shot of my kids that is one of the sharpest images I've seen on my PC, I printed an 8x11.5 of it on my new R300 printer and it is, as far as I can see, every bit as sharp and detailed of a lab print I had done of the same shot. But I also printed a 4x6 from a scanned (neg) indoor shot, and the result is noticeably grainier when comparing it to the lab print of the same pic. So I'm wondering, for home printing am I generally going to get better results from the *ist digitals, or will the 35mm scans be up to the task as well? Perhaps I just need to learn more about PSP or Photoshop? Thoughts or experiences anyone? To get better images from 35 mm film you need to use the best films. You also need to expose the picture optimal. You also need to make a very good scan. It is hard work. So - normally your *istD is "better" than 35 mm film. At least it is much less work getting there. Now - all do not agree. "Better" is a subjective property. Film can get some more resolution (properly done) and some like the random film graininess better than the regular pixelation you get from digital. /Roland |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I thought 35mm is a Film Camera | Helge Buddenborg via PhotoKB.com | 35mm Photo Equipment | 60 | February 5th 05 10:38 PM |
FA: Leitz Pradovit color 35mm slide projector... | hodag | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | November 27th 04 04:34 PM |
35mm on grade 3 explained | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 240 | September 26th 04 02:46 AM |
good mail order lab for slide processing | LW | Film & Labs | 3 | February 2nd 04 02:10 AM |
Agfascope 35MM slide Viewer for sale | Anthony | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 21st 03 02:31 PM |