Gear Talk > Other

Using an ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter for black-and-white negatives

<< < (2/3) > >>

Seapy:

--- Quote from: Ian Watson on April 22, 2020, 21:22:08 ---Inspired by Seapy's bracketing and merging the results into an HDR image with slides, I tried the metered exposure plus 2 stops either side. (Three exposures in total.) I also tried using just the metered exposure. I have to say that the HDR result looks overcooked and more grainy. It might work well with slides but not for black-and-white negatives.

--- End quote ---

I agree, for well exposed images HDR will introduce all sorts of issues but with poorly exposed Kodachromes it's amazing what can be rescued from an otherwise very poor image by using HDR. The exposure latitude of that film is very unforgiving, shadows easily underexpose and skies can be featureless but the amount of detail that is actually present in the image even in the very dark shadows is amazing, HDR technique can reveal that detail.

There is one command on Photoshop which inverts, much easier...

Jack Dahlgren:

--- Quote from: pluton on April 23, 2020, 18:36:43 ---The black and white rendering here looks pretty good. Isn't it shocking every time you see how low the resolution of the film was?

--- End quote ---

I remember discussions in the early days of digital where some people were claiming that film had "infinite" resolution and digital would never capture the same amount of information since there were more molecules on film than pixels on a sensor. Turns out that was wrong.

Birna Rørslett:
I do remember those days and the often heated discussions at the time. The print offices regularly complained the early years about the "small" size of the digital files and how inadequate they must be for a given print size. They forgot how much of the data was required to adequately describe grain structure. With a digital camera the noise floor was much lower and more numbers available to delineate image detail. Thus in general I could deliver a digital file 1/4 in size of a scan and have better-looking, and sharper, prints. A specific episode still sticks in memory. I got a complaint from a magazine that the file for their upcoming front page was too small and if I hadn't a better scan available. "Sure, no problem", I just upsized the digital file 4 times and re-submitted it. The editor was very pleased and later asked what kind of super-scanner I had purchased (!)

Hugh_3170:
 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D


--- Quote from: Birna Rørslett on April 25, 2020, 19:03:07 ---I do remember those days and the often heated discussions at the time. The print offices regularly complained the early years about the "small" size of the digital files and how inadequate they must be for a given print size. They forgot how much of the data was required to adequately describe grain structure. With a digital camera the noise floor was much lower and more numbers available to delineate image detail. Thus in general I could deliver a digital file 1/4 in size of a scan and have better-looking, and sharper, prints. A specific episode still sticks in memory. I got a complaint from a magazine that the file for their upcoming front page was too small and if I hadn't a better scan available. "Sure, no problem", I just upsized the digital file 4 times and re-submitted it. The editor was very pleased and later asked what kind of super-scanner I had purchased (!)

--- End quote ---

David H. Hartman:

--- Quote from: Birna Rørslett on April 25, 2020, 19:03:07 ---"Sure, no problem", I just upsized the digital file 4 times and re-submitted it. The editor was very pleased and later asked what kind of super-scanner I had purchased (!)

--- End quote ---

I love anecdotes like this!

Dave

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page