Hi
Please compare the two images below.
The first is a 'standard' (as opposed to pro) 4Mb scan of a Fuji Velvia 100 35mm exposure done by my pro lab that they burned to CD, along with the rest of the film.
The second is a 600dpi 24-bit RGB scan of the same transparency using my own Nikon LS-2000 film scanner with a 'landscape' colour balance selected during the scan process. I've done nothing else with it, either in the scan software or afterwards, and I accepted the defaults of the scanning software more or less, which is VueScan, version 8.5.01 (www.hamrick.com).
I realise I could correct it with sharpening etc, but the two scans are so different, and I expect the pro lab are only using default values too, so where I am I going wrong? Surely it's not just down to the fact they will be using a much better scanner, or is there really that much of a difference?
Where am I going wrong? What are the pro lab doing that I am not?
Ted
Please compare the two images below.
The first is a 'standard' (as opposed to pro) 4Mb scan of a Fuji Velvia 100 35mm exposure done by my pro lab that they burned to CD, along with the rest of the film.
The second is a 600dpi 24-bit RGB scan of the same transparency using my own Nikon LS-2000 film scanner with a 'landscape' colour balance selected during the scan process. I've done nothing else with it, either in the scan software or afterwards, and I accepted the defaults of the scanning software more or less, which is VueScan, version 8.5.01 (www.hamrick.com).
I realise I could correct it with sharpening etc, but the two scans are so different, and I expect the pro lab are only using default values too, so where I am I going wrong? Surely it's not just down to the fact they will be using a much better scanner, or is there really that much of a difference?
Where am I going wrong? What are the pro lab doing that I am not?
Ted