|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Art, if the polaroid lens is not as sharp as the canon, that would be the reason the main subject, the brick wall wasn't as sharp as the canon lens in the canon scanner. THe image was a brick wall cross lit by the sun, a VERY sharp situation for showing what a good lens can do. > I honestly do not understand how the below statement can be accurate. I > can see how the image can be sharp while the grain is not, through > diffused lighting, but not how the grain can be sharp while the image is > not, unless it was in different areas of the image. > > As to the software, I can only assume it doesn't fit your workflow > habits, but I find it both easy to work with and effective. For me, I just didn't like the way it worked. With the canon, when I scan a slide or negative, it takes about 5 minutes in the preview scan to correct all the things that need correcting. The prescan is usually very accurate as far as color goes, and not too much is needed in photoshop. Negatives take longer. BUt this isn't my complaint with the polaroid. I can do all that in photoshop. I was ONLY interested in a sharper image than I was getting with the canon, which is pretty darn good, I'm finding out. Jerry - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.