ZI digital - any news

[ampguy]

hmmm

hmmm

maybe it's my eyes or monitor, but the trees (?) on the left look like an oil spill.

Try an *ist w/good glass, or at least a gradated ND filter, imho.

Sorry, I don't do full crop, as that would be equivalent to a 3 m wide enlargement, which would be silly, chemically or digitally, imho, but here are some scans:

I tried to match the Canon digital look for this one:

I had those printed by Kodak at 60x45, and to be fair, they were about as good as it could get.

 

[dogless]

That you would need about four million little motors

nano machines my boy, nano machines. You can put a million of 'em on the head of a pin.

 

[amateriat]

I have to agree with jaapv on this, scanning does not give quality that can compare with digital sensor...

Don't know what you guys are scanning with, but I'm doing quite nicely with my setup, especially given what I'm seeing in actual prints, not just what I see on the monitor. Digital capture has a certain look, which, depending on a number of factors, might look a bit "better" than a scanned chip of film, but this is hardly a fait accompli. And, IMO, it still takes a fair amount of work to get to a good print, almost regardless of the digi-capture tool of choice. (Instant gratification takes a while.)


- Barrett

 

[ampguy]

I sometimes scan my 4x6 prints at Longs, and the enlargements come out better than submitting the file from a digital format.

 

[jaapv]

Don't know what you guys are scanning with, but I'm doing quite nicely with my setup, especially given what I'm seeing in actual prints, not just what I see on the monitor. Digital capture has a certain look, which, depending on a number of factors, might look a bit "better" than a scanned chip of film, but this is hardly a fait accompli. And, IMO, it still takes a fair amount of work to get to a good print, almost regardless of the digi-capture tool of choice. (Instant gratification takes a while.)


- Barrett

I think my examples prove I'm doing quite nicely as well, but it does indeed take a lot of work and still I think digital files are preferableand more manageble, also in print. I can't afford a drum scanner

 

[ghost]

years ago, i was stunned by a 16x20 print from a 35mm scan made by the original minolta dimage scan dual. i wonder what i'd think if i saw that print today.

 

[taffer]

Scanning is a "skill" leaned by doing. The scanner is only a tool, just like a camera is. You didn't start out with your first camera taking award winning photos did you? If you spend the same amount of time and energy learning to set your scanning parameters, as you did learning to use your camera, then you can get spectatular scans from good negs or transparencies, b/w or color. I am very happy with my scans, but to get top quality scans, it is not an automatic process, rather each scan has to be tweaked before final full resolution scan is comitted to the computer hard drive.

Gene McCluney
McCluney Commercial Photography

I agree absolutely and admit of myself thinking sometimes of scanning as that 'final automatic step' as if dropping the film and pressing 'scan' would be enough.

I know it's not that way, and in fact I tend to pay attention and to learn from what I do, but recognize that I'm not as methodic as I should with my scanning and even if the scanner I use is 'only' a 3170 photo, I'm far from mastering it.

Gabriel... qué adaptador de película en rollo ??? Donde conseguiste eso ?

Oscar

 

[jaapv]

maybe it's my eyes or monitor, but the trees (?) on the left look like an oil spill.

Try an *ist w/good glass, or at least a gradated ND filter, imho.

Nope, on the print and the original they are fine, resizing for the web is the culprit.
If you don't mind I prefer Leica glass over Pentax I'll redo it on the M8 coming spring.