On 9/14/2010 2:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I had my argus negatives scanned as TIFF files at Bay. When I started
processing them I noticed that the files seemed to have less dynamic range than
the raw files out of my pentaxen. I also noticed how much the grain looked like
digital noise.
I did some poking and prodding and discovered that the TIFFs are only scanned
at 8 bits, which surprised me, because I expected at least 12. Am I unusual in
that I'd want more latitude for post processing out of scanned negatives? Or is
it just assumed that they adjust the exposure of the scan to the negative
(though some seemed under or over by a stop or so) and the extra bits aren't
needed?
Or is 8 bits all that there really is to film? to get more you'd need a
nonlinear conversion in the under and over exposed areas?
--
Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est
You've just discovered a big reason why people thought Digital was
superior to film... Even before it was. Wet prints from good negatives
always were better than scanned prints from those same negatives, at
consumer prices. Good scanning is costly.
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woody Allen
--
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.
