View Single Post
Old 03-28-2013, 01:43 AM   #13
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
I'm someone that shot a lot of film. I wonder when was the last time some of you slide film guys fired up a slide projector. That's when you notice the considerable superior quality of film.

The problem comes when you try to digitize film. The scanners transform your film into pixels and that's where I see the weakness occur. I didn't realize till much later that it takes a considerable amount of skill to try and make that scan look like the image that is on that slide.

I've been going back and replacing a lot of my earlier scans on railpictures. Now I wonder how that stuff was accepted by the screeners in the first place.
Chris Z
Right you are, Chris! If you crank up the old Ektagraphic slide projector (assuming the bulb still functions), the superior image quality of a good slide is indeed obvious. But, anyone who works from a slide is at an immediate disadvantage with respect to RP.net, because of the additional steps I mentioned---all of which degrade the final image on the computer screen (well, in some extreme cases digital enhancement can forgive some past sins).

Some of my earliest scans on RP.net are downright awful. I should do the same thing you did and redo some of them.

And to Jim: I assumed that dust specs, scratches, etc. should be fixed as a prerequisite for any scanned image.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote