|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
At 11:41 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Christiane wrote: >Many thanks for your remarks; I used to shoot Fuji rather than Kodak; I've >switched to Kodak because the scanner has more/better profiles for Kodak >emulsion than for Fuji's.. too bad they have all that grain.. Christiane, I think that would be a silly way to go, frankly. Don't let the scanner software rule you that way! Film grain is forever, but scanner profiles are these ethereal digital things that mean little. Strangely, I've gone exactly the opposite route from you. I shot Kodacolor 200 almost exclusively, until I noticed the HUGE improvement in grain by switching to ISO 100. So now I'm a Fuji Reala fan, and/or Royal Gold 100. A bad scanner profile simply means that you'll have to spend a bit more time with the TWAIN driver, getting the scan right. But switching to a different film brand (with more grain, to boot) is an extreme reaction. A bit crazy, if you ask me. Maybe check with Polaroid, and beg/plead for a new profile for the film you *want* to use? Or have a look at the profiles and see if you can create the one you need by judiciously cloning and editing one of the existing ones. FWIW, the "color management" I get from the Polaroid SprintScan Plus TWAIN driver is for the birds. I still spend 5, 10, 15 minutes on a worthy image, fixing up the scan curves/tones/exposures before I request the final scan. rafe b. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users