has anyone scanned Kodak Ektar 25? (it's an old film, at least no longer on
offer)? It had extremely small grain and very short exposure latitude,
sharp bends down and up (shadows/highlights). I managed to enlarge 135
frame to 50 by 40 cm with no visible grain and very good tonal rendition of
skin tones and hairs.
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:14:59 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > The scanner might
> > respond quite differently from paper emulsions.
>
>CCD's are a lot more linear in their response than photographic emulsions
>used on
>paper. There is a mismatch here: film has a more or less S-shaped
>densitometric curve
>which matches with the curve of paper, the two are engineered to more or
>less complement each other. Classically, film exhibits a straight-line
>response only
>through the midtones, whilst shadow response is extended and compressed
>and highlights
>ditto. Unfortunately, scanners have poor discrimination at the shadow end
>of their
>response due to CCD noise and sampling precision is also worst here. The
>compression
>exhibited by the film (low ODR) can result in weak and noisy shadows, and
>posterisation.
>
>Regards
>
>Tony Sleep
>http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
>comparisons
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
