Not yet Ernst, been running to keep up. But I will (soon hopefully), still curious to see what benefit may be had. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@chello.nl> To: <scan@leben.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:25 AM Subject: Re: Sprintscan 120 issues/findings (comments welcomed) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com> > To: <scan@leben.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:22 PM > Subject: Re: Sprintscan 120 issues/findings (comments welcomed) > > > However I remain curious to try the method Ernst posted a link > to, perhaps > > there's something going on here beyond the obvious. Ernst > would be the one > > to point that out:) Hopefully later tonight. > > Dave, > > did you try it out meanwhile ? Yesterday I scanned a neg in > NikonScan neg mode with as much of the factory default settings > as possible. An analogue gain of 0.5 added, 2 x sampling, 14 bit. > With the same settings I've used Dane's NikonScan > positive>negative method, the middle of the three described. > > What is interesting is the chroma difference between the two, > Dane's is far less clipped. Quite obvious in the NikonScan tool > menu. The colours are more saturated in the image. The NikonScan > looks like it has a veil of gray over it when compared to the > other. A bit more red is needed in Dane's image, it was taken > near the end of the day. In that aspect NikonScan neg scanning is > better. There's a risk that the strong colours go neon like, > something that has been observed in transparency scanning before > with those scanners. But bringing back saturation goes better > than increasing it. > > Ernst - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.