Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, IMO on the scanner the quality is best, but on the duplicating the color is best. Maybe we, all, we have a certain tendence to believe that digital should give us the same quality as the traditionnals methods, and each way has his own way to be reproduced. The projected light through a slide projector or an enlarger could be never be the same thing as the digital interpretation of a scanning software can do. Saludos cordiales Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org] En nombre de Tina Manley Enviado el: domingo, 11 de noviembre de 2007 19:50 Para: digitalusersgroup@yahoogroups.com; lug@leica-users.org; paw@micapeak.com; seephoto@micapeak.com Asunto: [Leica] Comparing Scanning vs Duplicating PESO: Here are the comparisons of the Kodachrome slide scanned vs duplicated with actual pixel crops: http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/scanning_ What do you think? I think I'm going to experiment some more with the scanner and see if I can get better color and less grain using GEM and ROC. 64 ISO films should not be this grainy but Kodachrome seems to scan that way. Tina Tina Manley ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI http://www.tinamanley.com _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information