Looks to me like it can't handle continuous-tone any better than a "toy"
camera you'd get with Cracker-Jacks! With "stellar" decisions like this, I'm
going to hold on to all my Kodak stuff--looks like they'll be *rarities* in
a few years, given this apparent death-wish from Rochester.
--LRA
------Original Message------
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
To: Filmscanners <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: May 19, 2001 3:42:17 PM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
on 5/19/01 8:30 AM, Steve Greenbank at steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk wrote:
> See this :
>
>
>
> and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M)
>
>
well, it's very very sharp and grain free.
but the tonality is HIDEOUS. It looks like a grab from a video picture. Look
at the highlights on the hair. Agh. Is this progress?
run! very fast! in the opposite direction!
I could do substantially better with my super speed graphic, a 50 year old
lens, some APX 100 and a jug of Xtol.
tone! tone! tone!
obviously that camera can do a bazillion wunnerful things but film has a few
tricks up its sleeve yet methinks.
--
John Brownlow
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
