On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: >> Of course, you don't get results quite the equal of a film scanner, >> although it's faster. After all, you get about a 6Mpixel image rather >> than, say, a 10.2 Mpixel image (2820 ppi) or 21.43 Mpixel (4000 ppi). > > Currently, I'm getting hi res scans with no shadow detail. A loss of > resolution and a better overall image is fine by me. Thanks for the > tips.
If your scans are lacking in shadow detail, either the scanner has too low dmax capability to handle the density of your originals, or your originals are blocked up in the shadows, or you are not setting the scan software appropriately to accommodate the difficult nature of the originals. Most scanners available today will handle a dmax in the 3.4-4.0 range, which is about the same 8 to 9 stop dynamic range of the DSLR sensor, and output full [EMAIL PROTECTED] quantized data rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] like the DSLR. In other words, if you can't get the data from the originals with the scanner, you likely will not get anything better tonally with the camera but it will be lower resolution. The only advantage, and it may be a considerable one if you have a lot of particularly blocked up originals, is that you can push more light behind them and make multiple exposures at different exposure levels, composite them together, with the DSLR. Scanners usually have a fixed light source and therefore don't allow this option. I know this from my work capturing difficult slides and negatives into digital images with both scanners and cameras. The only reason I go the DSLR macro route with Minox negatives is that I can get substantially greater resolution that way. For 35mm work, even a cheap film scanner (like the Minolta Scan Dual II that I've used since 2000) does a better and more consistent job. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
