-
the one on the left was scanned by a shop. personally i don't like it at all, which is why i looked into other scanning options. the one on the right is one i did myself on a cheap slide scanner i borrowed off my dad, cost 50 quid.
the one on the right looks way closer to how the actual slide looks when held up to the light. i reckon the shop scanned them, then colour corrected them before running them through the sharpen filter 1000 times.
it was taken on an xa2, and the one i did myself is more what i was expecting to see from the camera, and i much prefer it to the shop scan
neither are photoshopped (to my knowledge) btw, just straight from the scanners
-
Need some opinions here... Got the same photo, scanned by 2 different scanners, just trying to work out which is best.
isn't it obvious? loads more shadow detail and sharpness on the left as well as the correct colour, banding in the sky more obvious on the left as well as more vignetting.
look at the bottom right corner stonework panel in the background, if that doesn't convince you perhaps visit an optician. :-)
-
ok should have worded it better. i was after 'which one do you prefer'
-
i was gonna write something there but fuck it, i'm obviously just wrong.
-
Nah you're not wrong, go with what you like - assume the print is for your viewing pleasure not others'? I can see the appeal in a noiseless high saturation scan like the one on the right.
On the other hand if you're scanning it for presenting on the web no one is going to see the grain anyway so who cares..
Edit: photochop out the messy lower right corner, problem solved ;)
-
perhaps go digital if you want to fiddle with it?
-
i was gonna write something there but fuck it, i'm obviously just wrong.
The difference is just a little slide on the temp bar in Lightroom/Photoshop.
As you say yourself – the photo isn't very good. When you've got a picture you like... then you can try for improvements with the imaging.
-
perhaps go digital if you want to fiddle with it?
I mainly shoot digital, this is just a side project sort of thing.
The difference is just a little slide on the temp bar in Lightroom/Photoshop.
As you say yourself – the photo isn't very good. When you've got a picture you like... then you can try for improvements with the imaging.
I think my main problem is that the shop decided to photoshop the images to how they thought they should look. I'll take the next roll elsewhere.
-
I think my main problem is that the shop decided to photoshop the images to how they thought they should look. I'll take the next roll elsewhere.
to me it looks like they have just balanced the colour/white point, cant say about any sharpening artifacts as it's a small jpeg but i would rather start with a good clean scan and a full tonal range then make it look how i want it.
you could make the left image look like the right but not the right look like the left because the information just isn't there. -
might do, till what time?
-
work till 5 so probs no good
-
I have an old OM-1n; it makes such nice quality photo's but i just ran out of film for it and battery is now dead and i don't know were to get new film and a new battery! any Hints?
The film question has been answered rather satisfactorily I feel, but regarding the battery amswer, I somewhat disagree.
Why use a battery at all? The OM1 is a mechanical camera, and therefore is designed to work without a battery. Sure, the meter is rendered useless, unless modded as described above. But what about using a handheld meter? If you need an advanced one, then many are available, with more precise readings than normally available from an in-built camera meter. There are also mechanical meters, which don't need batteries at all. The king amongst these is the Sekonic L-398. It gives incident and reflected readings, but is more accurate than you would believe. Even though it can't do flash or spot readings, its still a fantastic meter. As a back-up meter, it can't be beaten. And for those that can do without spot and flash readings, then its a perfect main meter...IMO.
-
I have an old OM-1n; it makes such nice quality photo's but i just ran out of film for it and battery is now dead and i don't know were to get new film and a new battery! any Hints?
C'mon, it's not difficult, Boots, Snappy Snaps, Tesco......
-
This could go really cheap if you can stand APS*
*no idea why you would want to shoot APS though. Thought the price was to good to be true and when I read the description again it all made sense
-
speaking of that, how do you fellow glass wearers tackle this? Is there ways to solve it or do you just learn to frame without seing the edges of the viewfinder?
scratches in the top left quarter of my right lens, every sodding pair of glasses...
I have wonky astigmatism too, used to wear contacts for sport/clubbing but just far prefer glasses, so haven't had contacts for about ten years.I've got several rolls of C41 to be developed, accumulating since Darkside moved out of town. not sure whether to post stuff to them, or find a new favourite developer... maybe Photofusion, or one of the big mail order places. nervous about sticking my films in the post...
also, I should really get something actually developed from the lil Trip35 I've been using lately, I don't know if it even works...
-
The film question has been answered rather satisfactorily I feel, but regarding the battery amswer, I somewhat disagree.
Why use a battery at all? The OM1 is a mechanical camera, and therefore is designed to work without a battery. Sure, the meter is rendered useless, unless modded as described above. But what about using a handheld meter? If you need an advanced one, then many are available, with more precise readings than normally available from an in-built camera meter. There are also mechanical meters, which don't need batteries at all. The king amongst these is the Sekonic L-398. It gives incident and reflected readings, but is more accurate than you would believe. Even though it can't do flash or spot readings, its still a fantastic meter. As a back-up meter, it can't be beaten. And for those that can do without spot and flash readings, then its a perfect main meter...IMO.
If you are not going to be using flash, save yourself £100 and use the PhotoMeter app for the iphone (I'm sure theres an android version if that's how you swing). It's spot on for readings and is free. But yes G is right, have a go shooting mechanical. It's liberating.
-
scratches in the top left quarter of my right lens, every sodding pair of glasses...
I have wonky astigmatism too, used to wear contacts for sport/clubbing but just far prefer glasses, so haven't had contacts for about ten years.Just bought on of these
That seems to get good reviews online, will hopefully help me frame better while shooting with glasses
I've got several rolls of C41 to be developed, accumulating since Darkside moved out of town. not sure whether to post stuff to them, or find a new favourite developer... maybe Photofusion, or one of the big mail order places. nervous about sticking my films in the post...
I use http://www.the-darkroom.com/ Sent them rolls 3-4 times now, always get them back 2 days later and so far I'm really happy with everything. I've only done slide film through a lomo though so hard to tell scan quality, but from what I can tell from my mates rolls, shot with a slr, it's all good
philxthomas
deleted
miro_o
Yemble
kboy
cgrayson7272
Nef
Mightyquin
hoefla
photoben-
Post a reply
About
Analog film photography and cameras
Posted by
@GA2G
Definitely the left one, the colours look more natural and despite the grain it has a lot of detail in it which is better than the solarised, photoshop-filter blurred look the right one has going on.