MDM Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, spacecadet said: Neither do I, and IMHO they don't. I've removed my examples. I thought I was being helpful. I didn't put them up to be judged in this way. 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: Eh? I don't agree and I don't know what you mean. They look like photographs to me. I'm sure they could be improved but I spent as much time as I thought sensible- I don't see any merit in trying to make scans from film look like digital images. I don't know about the software you've mentioned because I haven't used any. It wasn't intended to be an insult, simply an objective assessment. You said yourself you did minimal processing and that they look like photographs. Presumably you meant prints from film as they are all photographs. Broadly speaking there are two end-member approaches to digitising film. One is to just get it digitised as quickly as possible and the other is to try to get the best digital image possible. Both approaches are valid and a lot will depend on the original slide or neg - content and technical quality. My originals are generally of very good technical quality and I want to get the best I can out of them. Some were taken as recently as 2005 and digitised already using a film scanner but the new technology allows me to get even better digital images from them. In contrast you have said yourself that your originals were often not of the best technical quality so your approach of minimal processing is valid. If you show them on the forum then I assume it is fair to comment on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now