Anyone try the new Kodak Portra films yet?

[picturesque]

Marc--thanks again. I'll shut up now and think about everything.

[erie_patsellis]

Marc,

I use a diffusor when I scan (using either an older Umax PowerLook III or a Heidelberg Opal Ultra) which consists of the high tech approach of a piece of translucent white styrene. There are a few tricks though, you want to make sure that the diffusor covers the area that the scanner calibrates through, fairly easy on the Umax and the Opal. Your scanner has to have some significant dynamic range capabilities as you're in esscence reducing the light level to the sensor. All of the B&W pics on my website, www.eriepatsellis.com are either 6x7 negatives(scanned at the max optical res of 2400dpi) or 4x5/8x10(scanned at between 600 and 1000dpi)nearly all of the ones on the website are reduced to about 2400 pixels wide, even at that size, grain is more prevalent than anything else. You will have to play with your whitepoint/blackpoint/gamma settings, if your scanner software has a histogram available, use it. During this winter, I'll be trying some wet scanning, in conjunction with diffusion, should be interesting, to say the least. I've also scanned some older C-41 negs using the same approach and have had excellent results.

 

erie

[gaetano catelli]

another greatly informative thread! thanks to all.

 

"I have often wondered why optically made prints look different than digitally made prints, ..."

 

the more prints i look at, both my own and stuff i see exhibited in galleries, the more i am drawn to the conclusion that the lens is still the critical variable, even in digital.