Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,653   Posts: 1,668,796   Online: 960
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    989
    Images
    10
    The scan job definitely isn't great. Look at all the "aliasing" clearly visible in the ceiling....that doesn't look like film grain at all. Have the lab do what they consider a quality scan of a few frames and see if there is a huge difference.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,957
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    45
    Looks perfectly fine to me. Maybe a little over sharpened, but what the hey.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,198
    You can't be too picky about image structure issues when you are looking at a JPG file.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    789
    The Epson V600 is, I'm sure, a fine scanner, but it won't compare to a dedicate film scanner with 35mm. It's pushing it with 35mm, but for web/small prints use it will get you by fine. I have a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED and 35mm is at it's limit on it also. Now, if we're talking 6x6 or larger the Nikon is fantastic and it makes me wonder why I mess with 35mm at all. Your V600 should very nicely with medium format also. I personally think your image looks darn good for what you're working on, but if you want better you might think about moving up in format or dedicated film scanner might help.

  5. #15
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,439
    It looks fine to me too. The scanning artifacts are there, but the picture itself is ok. Now I'm sure I could NOT do better, I'm not good at taking pictures, but the exposure does look like it needs a little work. Still, it's not bad.
    Truzi

  6. #16
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,302
    This is obviously an analog site, but we all scan to share work... right?
    No, not everybody is a narcissist or a exhibitionist in need of praise. There's plenty of "Vivian Maier" photographers still around.

    BTW, you go to all the trouble to shoot film and then have it reduced to low quality pixels? There's no logic in that.
    For a scan, your image is fine.
    Fed 2, 5
    Zenit 11
    Olympus OM-1N, OM-2N, OM-4, OM10
    A bunch of Nikons
    Ferrania backer

  7. #17
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,245
    Images
    5
    For an Epson flatbed scan of 35mm film this is not bad. I'm not sure you had anything very exciting in terms of good lighting or anything else like that, what exactly were you expecting that you don't see here?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #18
    dodphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricardo Miranda View Post
    No, not everybody is a narcissist or a exhibitionist in need of praise. There's plenty of "Vivian Maier" photographers still around.

    BTW, you go to all the trouble to shoot film and then have it reduced to low quality pixels? There's no logic in that.
    For a scan, your image is fine.
    I don't remember asking for praise... But other than that, sure. I'm a visual learner, as many are, so scans help people discuss strengths and weaknesses. Is that blasphemous?

    I shoot film and print for personal work.

    I digitize images for ease of replication. I shoot 365 projects, 52 week project, other thematic projects and I like to create books of this work. Like I said before I normally shoot MF and LF and for this purpose scans from this affordable machine look absolutely fine.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Daniel-Duarte.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    623
    The photos looks OK to me, however I do think 1200dpi is pretty low to scan 35mm film at, my ancient old Canoscan did 4000dpi. For showing on the web, though, 1200dpi is fine fine.

    Bokeh is not an area of interest for me, but it looks fine to me.

    I do think though, that if you normally shoot medium format, I can't see 35mm ever really being good enough for you, unless you change your views on what's an acceptable level of technical quality. I went from 35mm to medium format, I've tried to get back into 35mm, but just can't seem to do it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    789
    Thegman is right and I would think 2000+ dpi would be about the lowest to go with 35mm. I also have a hard time going back to 35mm when it comes to scanning. I can take a good medium format shot and make it look much better than an excellent 35mm one. Size does matter! That said, I do use 35mm from time to time for "not-so-serious" stuff and it works. I also agree that your shot might be just a little "over sharpened" by the halo/dot look, but I don't know what your settings were.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin