That is, in essence, what I do. I can grab a large dynamic range from scanning deep and then shallow, and then normal, and combining them to an HDR image. Works very well with Velvia and Tri-X.Originally Posted by Marko
That is, in essence, what I do. I can grab a large dynamic range from scanning deep and then shallow, and then normal, and combining them to an HDR image. Works very well with Velvia and Tri-X.
Well, I'm not sure if we are understanding each other? First off when I put the chrome on the light box, I can clearly see the grass as green & in focus so as to see individual leaves of the plants (flowers & trees) in the foreground. Secondly I am not sure I know the trick you are talking about using?
I am not digitly well versed. I bought a HP Scanjet 4890 because I was shooting porta 300 color neg. film & it got old (expensive) to have a print made just to see if you had a veable negative to print (enlarge). During those dazes, I did pay to have scans done . . . they turned out to be 200dpi@600% (28x22) range used to print enlargements. Being ignorant I had expected a 4x5@2400dpi with a file size on the order of a drum scan.
Last edited by Clay Turtle; 9-Feb-2008 at 14:11. Reason: addition
Clay, IMO, you can use all the tricks you want with a consumer scanner and you still won;t get a scan that will give you what I would consider an outstanding pint.
The image you have posted makes it very difficult t tell what you are seeing on the light table. Having said that if you have a standard light table and are seeing good coor and good detail then a high end scanner should be able to pull it out.
There are lots of lab that do marginal scanning work just like there are plenty that do fine work. See my PM.
Aye. An outstanding pint would be good about now. Many people find a few good pints to be a capital way to end a long and tiring week. What kind of pint do you favor? Ale, lager, stout -- what's your pleasure?
Oh, wait. Is beer off topic for scanning, or is it a requirement? I can't remember...
Bruce Watson
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. In a nutshell, two or more bracketed exposures are made, and then blended together digitally. With HDR, it is possible to capture images of subjects whose dynamic range is otherwise impossible to capture in a single shot.
If you search this forum, or the web at large, you will find that a lot of attention has been given to the subject lately. There are many techniques, and many illustrative images.
LOLOLOLOLOL beer is absolutely a requirement for, well you fill in the blank, hey I'm a moderator and can' sip while on dutyAye. An outstanding pint would be good about now. Many people find a few good pints to be a capital way to end a long and tiring week. What kind of pint do you favor? Ale, lager, stout -- what's your pleasure?
Oh, wait. Is beer off topic for scanning, or is it a requirement? I can't remember....
Otherwise my choice is my local brew.... Long Trail Double Bag http://www.longtrail.com/home.html
I questioned the scanner because I was shooting to see what effect different emulsions (slide film) handled low light. As I had shot some Kodak film (35mm) and scanned it without any problems, I shot LF as even with the same film there are diffeneces in the emulsion . . . 35 has an protective layer because it being on a roll.
So it was natural for me to question that seeing it on the slide why wasn't it on the scan? Of course, the 35 format is so small I might not have noted the problem while scanning them?
And yes, I have noted night photos in other threads & the usage of negative film as well as some chrome. The test shots are at night or low light but I do require the of characteristic of chrome for the intended purpose of the planned shoot. So I wanted to know if others had come up against the problem which may not be relevant to the actual photograph that I am planning.
Thank you all for the information and if nothing else I learned that if I shoot anything at night or low light then I better look into a brighter screen (gg)! As I carried a small pen light to see the dials setting on the lens perhaps I should carry a larger light to shine on an object at the focus distance that I intend to shoot at.
Last edited by Clay Turtle; 11-Feb-2008 at 09:40. Reason: sp errors
I have send you in pm
What? This thread is over two years old!
Gale
(Yes, an old thread indeed – and when I open “bumped” threads like this & see posts by the late Ted Harris, my heart skips, and for an instant, I think he’s with us again. He’s been gone two years now. And I still feel the loss. Deeply. But what a blessing to have his posts – and his spirit – still with us…)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks