I keep trying to "go digital," but I just can't. I just love film.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Bruce Dayton <[email protected]> wrote: > What is this 'film' thing you keep mentioning. > > I feel your pain. We have largely gone to a digital world and that > means that less and less film is being used. Less and less attention > is being paid to it by the labs. You want to do it good, you have to > do it yourself. I have been scanning for the past week or two with > my Minolta Scan Dual II and do not enjoy it. I am so done with film. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Thursday, March 18, 2010, 8:04:24 PM, you wrote: > > NW> I have been fighting with bad scans for quite a while now. > > NW> By bad I mean images that when viewed at 100% look as though shot with > NW> a cheap digicam. > > NW> So today I took a roll of film to a "pro" lab in the big city and paid > NW> about three times as much as the discount stores charge to get some > NW> "good" scans from my roll of film. > > NW> Imagine my disappointment when I get the CD in the machine and > NW> discover the same kind of cheap looking scan. > > NW> Here's an example: > NW> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedalingprose/4443788489/sizes/o/ > > NW> Turns out the sharpening method I used exaggerated the effect, but I'm > NW> leaving it as such for the time being so everyone can see what I'm > NW> referring to. > > NW> See especially in the dark areas? That's not grain, that's digital > NW> noise ... unless I am completely mistaken. > > NW> And I'm really sick of it. Is there no one left that makes good scans > NW> from a roll of film? Help! > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
