I was shooting on private property, half in error on my part. There were no trespassing signs although I thought I may have been trespassing. The scene was too pretty to pass up but couldn't wait to check it out after sunset. The owner chased me away just as I clicked the shutter then sent her husband to chew me out. I apologized and then emailed them an electronic copy after I scanned it to make amends. Frankly, I'm glad I didn't get shot
No formal testing on my part, the ranges of these films have been well known for a long time. Slides show you exactly all the details they hold. The limits are the blacks and whites easily visible.I haven't yet conducted these types of testing and I would appreciate seeing your setup and results on this.
No formal testing on my part, the ranges of these films have been well known for a long time.
So, when a slide is viewed in non-digital form (light box or projection) the only variable that allows seeing more shadow detail is increasing the luminance of the light source, that’s a global adjustment (unless you are making masks) and that global increase comes at a cost, it blows out some of the highlights and raises the mid-tones. This has always been the problem with slides.I have made some informal observations and will move on to better qualify them formally. Unfortunately, long held premise about things don't mean it is so. For instance my results from Kodak E100 underexposed areas are in fact very good. Hopefully with it's return, I will be able to finalize testing.
So, when a slide is viewed in non-digital form (light box or projection) the only variable that allows seeing more shadow detail is increasing the luminance of the light source, that’s a global adjustment (unless you are making masks) and that global increase comes at a cost, it blows out some of the highlights and raises the mid-tones. This has always been the problem with slides.
Don't transparencies hold more detail than a scanner can digitize? Never tried it, but I think you can do multiple scans for the highlights, middle tones and shadows then blend them in an HDR file.
I suggested masks and digital fixes, what tools are you talking about?That is the traditional assessment but we now have tools for more isolated adjustments.
You can absolutely do it with slide film. It simply requires that A) you develop the slide film to a different contrast index, instead of 1.0 you need to get close 0.6 (essentially a huge pull/minus development) and B) you need to plan on adjusting the finished positive digitally to fix the final contrast.That is what I have done to years old slides that I have and have been able to make much better adjustments. When I make more formal tests, I should be able to better quantify what I can achieve on slides much like I have done for negatives and b&w.
YepLinear scans of Log materials are hard, if not impossible to create good a looking image. In the motion picture industry, we use Cineon .dpx log encoded files for both negative and positive materials to preserve the shadow detail. Linear encoded files waste over 1/2 of the dynamic range of the sensor, period. It's a pain in the butt to use log encoded files, because you then have to normalize them and then color correct them.
There is no simple solution to scanning film and getting a good image...
There is no simple solution to scanning film and getting a good image.
That surely helps.There is. Understand the film's characteristics and expose the scene correctly. It does not need a PhD written about it.
Les Sarile, these are actually just math problems. The manufacturers H&D curves for each film demonstrate the limits mathematically and show the range of usable exposure, I’d suggest you start there.
The numbers are well known, to change the numbers you have to change something significant.
There is no simple solution to scanning film and getting a good image...
The vertical lines I've drawn show roughly the range of usable exposure from the scene. One log equals 3 stops. The difference between my lines is about 1-2/3 log, or 5 stops.
I have scanned my film with an Epson V700 and in the past a Nikon Coolscan 4000. The CS is sharper than the flatbed but they are both acceptable for a print. Then again a dSLR is more detailed than a CS. But the main thing I have with a slide is that it doesn't have the same impact as looking at the original slide.
I can see how one might appreciate b/w film or C41 film but with the original slide for me at least I see this slick, colourful, vivid, vibrant slide and the scan just doesn't look like that.
Like to know your views on this. How you do view your slides?
Cheers.
Never saw the images, but I wonder if they're drum scanned? Drum scans uses photo multiplier tubes (PMT) , while most flatbed scanners use charged coupled devices (CCD). Do you have a drum scanner at your lab Bob?one only needs to google Fred Herzog Equinox gallery and look at scans of 1960 Kodachrome to see what quality can be achieved in a good operators hands.. Not sure who did them but they are quite fantastic.
I have an Imocan Flextight and a Creo Eversmart Supreme.Never saw the images, but I wonder if they're drum scanned? Drum scans uses photo multiplier tubes (PMT) , while most flatbed scanners use charged coupled devices (CCD). Do you have a drum scanner at your lab Bob?
Scanners are like cameras. Requires a great operator. Without any real alternatives for printing slides, digital printing of transparencies is relying more on high-quality scans. Digital prints are only good as the digital image.I have an Imocan Flextight and a Creo Eversmart Supreme.
the images were most likely scanned by a very competent scanner operator... this is the most important feature, someone who knows colour, knows endpoints and knows when to sharpen and when not to sharpen... its a complicated dance. I have done much experimentation over the years of scanners and in the right hands all the top end scanners are equal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?