Jump to content

nicholas_riggs

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I've uploaded three versions of the same photo to Imgur here http://imgur.com/a/yUN0i, and while the results didn't exactly surprise me (because I'm used to not being able to figure this out), my results seem to be pointing me down the road of inconsistency, and counter-intuitively to boot. Basically my out-of-the-camera images "tagged" as sRGB are displaying fine in %99 of the places that I'd like them to - as are my images that are saved WITHOUT sRGB color profiles. It's my photos that are saved from Photoshop with sRGB IEC 61966-2.1 that are having a lower chance of displaying properly on my monitor. Here - http://imgur.com/gallery/Qt9iz - a gallery of coins I shot (especially the pennies) look like ass on Imgur, but previewed in a Dropbox folder here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bct00iop9dbv7kj/AAAi0_Whmysfq9ot76sOdME6a?dl=0, they look good. I am confused.
  2. Peter, I'm not sure I understand your response. I already pointed out that a Hasselblad scanner that costs one year's worth of minimum-wage wages still, by design, scans Medium-Format negatives at %50 of the resolution of a 35mm. We're talking about scanning negatives here, I cannot build a scanner capable of scanning at 1dpi, let alone 6500. It's not a matter of being picky, or controlling workflow, it seems to be an industry-wide consensus that Medium-Format negatives must (or need?) never to be scanned at the same resolution as a 35mm frame. Or maybe you just had one too many wines and replied to the wrong thread.
  3. Oops, Les you are correct, North Coast does scan MF at a higher res. I have contacted Indie Lab, but it's like midnight there, and I always like to hear from as many people as possible. The more experience and opinion I can draw from, the better. I'm mainly horrified because I was on the brink of buying a Pentax 6x7 until I found out about all this. Based solely off the resolutions I was reading, my Nikon F and Canon AE-1 will give me roughly the same bang-for-my-buck when printing, EPECIALLY when you factor in film/processing/scanning costs.
  4. <p>A 35mm negative has a physical size of ~840mm/sq, and a 6x7 Medium-Format negative has a physical size of ~3920mm/sq. Yet in researching scan-sizes at various labs, I am stumped as to why Medium-Format scans are so proportionately small compared to 35mm scans. The Darkroom will provide "Super" scans of 35mm at 4492x6774 px, but the pixel dimensions of their "Super" scans of a 6x7 Medium-Format negative that has 4.5 times the physical image area as the 35mm is actually SMALLER, at 4814x5902px.</p> <p>I am coming across similar results at other labs -</p> <ul> <li>35mm Res vs. 6x7 Res. - Lab Name</li> <li>4492x6774 vs. 4814x5902px - The Darkroom</li> <li>6955x4668 vs. 7175x8793 - IndieFilm Lab</li> <li>3339x5035 vs. 4815x5902 - North Coast Photo</li> <li>4492×6774 vs. 3533×4824 - Old School Photo Lab</li> <li>Etc.</li> </ul> <p>Only one of these labs offers Medium-Format scans that are larger than their scans of 35mm. Even a $16,000 Hasselblad Flextight X1 Negative Scanner lists it's optical resolution for 35mm as 6300dpi, and 3200dpi for Medium-Format scans - which negates any resolution-advantage of a larger negative.<br> <br> #1 - How is it possible that every lab and scanner commercially available (except one), can/will not scan a MUCH larger negative at a proportionately high resolution as 35mm?<br> <br> #2 - Why even shoot Medium-Format if it is impossible to get scans that will do such a large negative justice?</p>
×
×
  • Create New...