>Tris wrote:
>
> > By the way, I would like to use Digital Ice once just to see how well it
> > works, but I'm rather confident I'd be disappointed in the results. I
> > assume the before-and-after pictures I've seen are best-case examples, and
> > they didn't impress me much.
>
>Tris,
>
>I made some examples a year or so back of some fungus attacked negs
>using a Minolta Elite and I posted these at:
>
>
>
>These images were far from pin sharp anyway...
I was just going to mention that. It compromises the test. Also, I'd like
to be able to zoom in the examine the details of the images _very close up,
the same as if I were editing by hand.
>but the high res version of
>them on the page does show the magic that an Infrared channel can
>achieve. I'd be hard pressed to correct these problems by hand. What I
>don't know, of course, is how that same fungus damage would look using a
>scanner like the Polaroid SS4000.
I'm not sure it would be any better. My scanner picks up seemingly
everything--at times I've found myself cloning out "threads one pixel wide!
The Polaroid may not be an enabler of dust and such, but it's apparently so
sensitive and accurate that many almost microscopic defects show up anyway.
For instance little "boils" of what appears to be pocked dye clouds of the
emulsion come out looking (on color negative film) almost like lunar
craters shot from directly overhead. These faults cannot be discerned at
normal viewing size of the image, but when I'm deep in there looking for
stuff to clone away I find I can't help myself and go for all those little
buggers, too. To be frank I think I'm chasing my tail, but part of my mind
argues that the image just might look "cleaner" afterward, if only
subliminally.
>Like Art I am a fan of ICE but it does definitely soften the image. For
>instance, I scanned a slide recently (using an Elite II) where the teeth of a
>zip on a jacket were quite clearly defined when ICE was switched off. As
>soon as ICE was turned on, the teeth became blurred. Maybe this is due to
>the way Minolta has implemented ICE and that other scanners with ICE
>might be different. Maybe it was partly because it was an underexposed
>slide where I had to bring up the shadow detail.
>
>Anyway, if anyone is interested, I can post an example of the effect.
I'd love to see any examples you might have at hand, Al, if it's not too
much trouble.
Tris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
