geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 "for our MOMA retrospectives" Forgive my ignorance - what is that? Museum Of Modern Art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, geogphotos said: Museum Of Modern Art? Sorry, yes, a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 (edited) 1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said: Sorry, yes, a joke! Okay, I sort of got it 😄 Edited March 12, 2022 by geogphotos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, geogphotos said: Okay, I sort of got it 😄 Actually on a slightly more serious note, I have seen mind boggling quality from 35mm Kodachrome at a gallery, Steve McCurry's 'Afghan Girl' I remember in particular, huge print. No doubt a lot of work went into it though, very much worth it for the prices they were charging. Edited March 12, 2022 by Harry Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 (edited) I did this at 3600 pixels a week ago and it sold yesterday for PU. Opening it there are some small dust spots but nothing too horrendous. And much quicker to deal with at this size. Edited March 12, 2022 by geogphotos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 1 minute ago, geogphotos said: Opening it there are some small dust spots but nothing too horrendous. And much quicker to deal with at this size Looks great, that's what it's all about really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: Looks great, that's what it's all about really. Yes I have a huge volume of slides to process and need to get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 Sorry to butt back in again and please do not take what I am about to say the wrong way. To me the image of the two young ladies, which I assume is a digitised copy of a slide, appears soft to me which is the message I was trying to get across in my previous posts. It is not my eyes or my screen as everything else appears sharp. I assume that we have to put up with a bit of softness in a digitised copy but the images I was processing were very soft bordering on out of focus. I can only think that there was something amiss with the film guide distance setting not hitting the lens focal point in the camera I was using when the photo was taken. Or vice versa. ie lens not set at correct distance from film guide. Allan This is my last post on this subject. Thanks for looking and previous comments. ITMA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 1 hour ago, geogphotos said: I did this at 3600 pixels a week ago and it sold yesterday for PU. Opening it there are some small dust spots but nothing too horrendous. And much quicker to deal with at this size. Back to my original thought- are you retouching at full size and just doing less, knowing that it will look fine at 3600 as against original size? Or are you actually viewing at 3600 when you retouch. I can't think of a way to do that in LR. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear but I'm trying to work out how you cut down the amount of spotting you have to do. This would be handy for me as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 2 hours ago, Allan Bell said: To me the image of the two young ladies, which I assume is a digitised copy of a slide, appears soft to me which is the message I was trying to get across in my previous posts. This is 200% on my Mac. I think that it is acceptable. Your point is another argument for downsizing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share Posted March 12, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, spacecadet said: Back to my original thought- are you retouching at full size and just doing less, knowing that it will look fine at 3600 as against original size? Or are you actually viewing at 3600 when you retouch. I can't think of a way to do that in LR. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear but I'm trying to work out how you cut down the amount of spotting you have to do. This would be handy for me as well.. I am resizing and then cleaning up any obvious, large dusts spots - trying to resist the tempation to go after every tiny little one because it is simply too much work for the likely reurn. Edited March 12, 2022 by geogphotos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said: I wonder if anyone uses those image size search filters on Alamy, they are set at 1, 5, 15, 24, 48 & 70 MB? So 3600 x 2400 px would be above the 24 MB threshold, possibly giving it an advantage over 3000 x 2000 px. Yes they do. It's an easy test (provided you do have a good set of large files) : go to your Pseudonym Summary and look out for [FS]. wim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 20 hours ago, geogphotos said: I think that it is acceptable. Looks to me that you can see the film grain on the window frames, so a very good 'scan'. The focus is possibly slightly behind the girls and in any case they are moving slightly, so acceptable, yes - and it sold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: Looks to me that you can see the film grain on the window frames, so a very good 'scan'. The focus is possibly slightly behind the girls and in any case they are moving slightly, so acceptable, yes - and it sold! Let's face it- that's probably as sharp as day-to-day photography on film ever was. It's just not comparable with a modern digital capture. Not inferior, just not comparable. I think I came to realise that some time ago. Edited March 13, 2022 by spacecadet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 13, 2022 Author Share Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) Please remember that the pictures I am digitising were not taken by professionals with professional gear. Here is another that again I think is acceptable and worth contributing despite the focus not being perfect - after all that is what the Archive route is all about. And 3600 does seem the correct decision to me. Edited March 13, 2022 by geogphotos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 13, 2022 Share Posted March 13, 2022 2 hours ago, spacecadet said: Let's face it- that's probably as sharp as day-to-day photography on film ever was. It's just not comparable with a modern digital capture. Not inferior, just not comparable. Well, as Ian points out these are taken often by amateurs. For that particular shot I think that if the girls had been in focus and not moving then at 3600 px long side with a bit of selective noise/grain reduction a buyer wouldn't have been able to tell that they had been taken on film. Yes, modern high MP sensors combined with modern lenses and possibly hidden software corrected sharpness and aberrations then what you say is undoubtedly true. For lenses that might not be quite so good then not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 15, 2022 Share Posted March 15, 2022 Copying 35mm with a standard DSLR is not acceptable to me. Sorry, but NO. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 15, 2022 Author Share Posted March 15, 2022 3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said: Copying 35mm with a standard DSLR is not acceptable to me. Sorry, but NO. Chuck Nobody is going to make you do it Chuck 😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now