> This sounds great but doesn't actually say anything. Too many unquantified
> caveats. Most people could substitute their favorite scanner without otherwise
> changing a word.
>
> For example, what do the following mean?
>
> 1) "correctly exposed original"
> 2) "sensible black point setting"
> 3) "some compression of dark tones"
> 4) "nearly all of it (noise) below Dmin"
> 5) "on most films can be safely discarded"
> 6) "which retains virtually all of the image"
>
>
> I see only two facts in your paragraph:
>
> a) The Polaroid has visible noise, and
> b) it compressions shadow detail.
>
>
> So for these actual facts, I agree.
>
> The rest is unquantifiable and wholly subjective. Depending on what you mean
> by "sensible", "correctly", "some", "nearly all", "most", "virtually all" I may
> agree or disagree. I honestly haven't a clue.
>
> Personally, I think the Polaroid is a decent scanner. Most of the current
> generation are. Hopefully someday they won't need so many caveats.
Sorry, but you'll just have to live with the ineffabilities, or resolve them for
yourself. I am a mere photographer interested in image quality as a basis for
relative comparison, not a scientist or technician whose aim is the reduction of all
characteristics to quantified entities. I have no objection to the latter approach,
but
I don't have the skills, tools and resources, nor inclination. It also isn't very
meaningful to me, as it is not how I make photos.
You had better start with a definition of quality, then develop a precise notion of
'correct exposure'. That should keep you busy for a few decades <g>
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
comparisons
