I can not for the life of me understand anyone prefers to uprate and
overdevelop film when film of the higher speed is readily available .
What is the real, as opposed to percieved, value of this ?
By the way the neg film that we use if we know we will be scanning is
Fuji 400.
It gives really smo
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
>
> I can not for the life of me understand anyone prefers to uprate and
> overdevelop film when film of the higher speed is readily available .
One reason is that the pushed film will have less grain than the
non-pushed one, and for those of us who are particularly gra
Michael wrote:
>I can not for the life of me understand anyone prefers to uprate and
>overdevelop film when film of the higher speed is readily available .
>What is the real, as opposed to percieved, value of this ?
As mentioned elsewhere, there is supposedly finer grain with 100F pushed
to EI40
> I just started scanning a roll of Fuji Superia 400 on the weekend.
> The results were acceptable if I scan with the "scrub" filter
> enabled in Vuescan.
>
Rob
Is this with ICE or not?
John M.
John wrote:
>> I just started scanning a roll of Fuji Superia 400 on the weekend.
>> The results were acceptable if I scan with the "scrub" filter
>> enabled in Vuescan.
>Is this with ICE or not?
Er - the clean filters *are* the Vuescan equivalent of ICE. I can't use
Nikonscan due to jaggies.
R
Terry Danks said:
>I have put three ProviaF 400 scans, two at ISO400 and one at ISO 800 at
>http://danks.netfirms.com/eagles400F.htm
To me there is more grain noticeable in the "Eagle in Flight" picture than in the
previous pushed one. In any case I don't find the grain at all objectionable,
p
Colin Maddock wrote:
> Terry Danks said:
>
> >I have put three ProviaF 400 scans, two at ISO400 and one at ISO 800 at
> >http://danks.netfirms.com/eagles400F.htm
>
> To me there is more grain noticeable in the "Eagle in Flight" picture than in the
>previous pushed one. In any case I don't find
