Dave wrote:
>is simply more grain in some areas of the negative than others. I
>wonder if this is due to some sort of "stacking" effect (Austin?),
>whereby areas with dyes closer to the color of the base appear
>grainier.
Tony - are you around? Tony mentioned something about different grain bei
> I
> wonder if this is due to some sort of "stacking" effect (Austin?),
You're over the extent of my knowledge here, but thanks for the thought ;-)
I use (as you may have seen by now) Fuji NHGII, and Superia is said to
be identical to Fuji Press 800, but Fuji reps have told me Superia is
more grainy with a bit more contrast. The published specs (I think,
not double checking) say equal grain however, and I've never done
critical comparisons.
Rob Geraghty wrote
> John wrote:
> > If you have an image that is that "good" get a drum scan
> > from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere.
>
> I suspect the cost of sending the film from Austraila to the States and
> returning the result on a CDR (if indeed an 11K scan would fit) would be
> p
bject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting
factor in sharpness?
| Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
| photography!
| I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
| photographer at a trade show rece
Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
photography!
I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
photographer at a trade show recently and he told me about a gyroscopic
tripod. Their website is http://www.ken-lab.com/.
He swears by it.
--- Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an
> ideal
> world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds,
> so
> the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already
> have.
You don't need Leica and Contax lenses to see a difference. Most better
brands have
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness
between
> their lenses when scanning films?
>
> Rob
Not particularly, but nearly all of my Nikkors are at least pretty
good, and some of them are excellent. The softest 35mm lens I own is
a S
Austin wrote:
>Ah, yes. Seriously, DO chase a better lense! The Contax 50/1.4 is a
>cheapie and any of the Contax lenses are in the same league as Leica glass.
>It's Zeiss glass...and they are superb performers, most any of them, and
>about 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of Leica glass.
I'd love to,
> Austin wrote:
> > What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
> > does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
> > primes to Leica/Contax primes...
>
> Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
> I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the
10 matches
Mail list logo
