P.S. on the topic of whether we should be discussing this: I think we should. Here is a person who is using film; let us help him get the most out of that and help him present his images without unnecessary artifacts. Moreover, I do sometimes see scan artifacts in the gallery images here e.g. sharpening halos, posterization, clipping etc.
P.P.S. Oh, so I agree with Ron
They are both good and valid responses and I concur.
Drum scans, despite their often obscene cost (e.g. $45 for a 35mm tranny at hi-res) deliver the best results.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
you paid for scans like this ?
take them back and ask for them
to be done without ice, and other enhancements. or your money back.
even a cheaper than 100$ scanner gives better results than this ...
I agree with Ron, low resolution printed too big, not over sharpened as many here suggest.
I have a Fuji roll scanner here and there is no setting of sharpening that could produce anything close to that artifact.