[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tank pictures
Yes. The film-to-CD transfer is just the film being scanned on a
professional scanner. Traditionally this has meant using a drum scanner.
Similar results can be obtained by scanning the negatives (or slides) in a
Usually the problem with scanned photographs is that you pick up film grain
from the cheap development machines. Over and under exposed film will look
bad no matter how it is scanned. If you have your film printed 8x10 and
then scan it and resize the image down to, say, 3x5, you will get a better
quality image than if you scanned an 8x10 print. Always scan at a high
resolution first and then downsize, and never work with a compressed image
(you should always compress only at the end of your editing and then only
if you have to -- compression artifacts are cumulative and will result in a
"sparkly" image). In photoshop, using gaussian blur and sometimes a bit of
"unsharp mask" will clean up mild film grain. It takes a lot of practice to
get right though.
Your best bet is to use a good slide film and and a slide scanner to scan
the developed slides. Using a better developer (that is going to a graphics
service bureau instead of a drug store) will make a BIG difference in the
quality of the images.
Digital cameras are good, but film is still better. Remember that film
resolution is on a molecular level. The previous post went into a lot of
detail about lighting and exposures. Combine that information along with a
good grade of film, a place that knows how to *properly* develope it, and a
slide scanner (to scan the negatives) and you can get some excellent images
that will beat any digital camera out there.
>Does this scenario also apply to film that has been transferred to
>CD? I've always taken my film in and got the prints only, never
>thinking of opting for the CD. Instead of taking a picture, having a
>crappy print made, then trying to scan it to make it look as good
>as I can, can't I just get them burned on a CD without any lose of
>quality? Or does it look the same as a print would? Quality without
>a digital camera is what I searching for. I have an old Canon AE-1
>that I've taken all my pictures with. I'm trying to decide if that route
>will give me better pictures for the net. Heck, we have an Epson
>740 that would print the actual pictures from CD if I ever wanted to.