Mike

After looked at your thread on 75"Lux. I wonder what is my problem? Would appreciate if you can give some hints.

The following picture is taken with 75'Lux at f2 1/125sec.

I was focusing the baby's eye, but it was not sharp at all. Is it because of the shallow DOF or due to "camera or baby" movement? Or even focusing problem with my scanner/

My second question. I am scanning the image using 2880 dpi, if you look at the last picture "zoom in view" of the eye. The image look so noisy, Is it the grain of the film? or something wrong with my scanner set up?

-- Phyllis (phyllam@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

doesn't appear...

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

Don't know how to put the image in and here is the link, hope this work.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=626894&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=626897&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=626898&size=lg

-- Phyllis (phyllam@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

My opinions to start the ball rolling: In the first image, the quilt at top right looks sharp enough. This close, with a baby, 1/125 isn't quick enough unless you want to take lots and hope for the best. My guess is that the noise in the shadows (i.e. baby's eye) is from the scanner, otherwise (in the skin tones) just the film stock. Fuji 100f is a lot less grainy than e100vs if grain is a particular concern (remember rms values mean each step up is a doubling in grain size so rms11 = 8 x grain of rms 8)

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

Actually, as I look at the first image, I see that his (?) bib -- below but in front of his eyes -- looks like the focus point. So I agree that the eyes are soft, and it is proabably due to not being precicely focused.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 11, 2002.

I think Steve and Jack covered it pretty well. Focus is slightly off, and you're seeing the film grain at 2800dpi. I think 1/125 should be a fast enough shutter speed unless you're hands aren't steady or the baby is really jerking around.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 11, 2002.

Thank you gentlemen.

When I looked the image, I couldn't find any point which is perfectly focused. I thought the scanner is off focused. Could it happen? What is the best way to test it?

Another question: When I open the file under Photoshop ( with Adobe RGB 1998 ), the image looks more saturated than the image shown on photo.net, can you tell me why and how am I going to correct it? I have calibrated my monitor with Photocal already. The digital stuff is so difficult to learn...

Sorry for so many questions.

-- Phyllis (phyllam@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

When I open the file under Photoshop ( with Adobe RGB 1998 ), the image looks more saturated than the image shown on photo.net, can you tell me why and how am I going to correct it?

The image viewer in your browser program (in mine, at least) doesn't display jpg images as clearly as most offline viewers. I can view a file from my site with Netscape, and open up the identical file on my hard drive with an offline viewer like PhotoShop or IrfanView, and the image is noticeably better looking (especially shadow detail) with the offline viewer. I try to make some adjustments to the files I'll put on the web to compensate for the differences, but for now, web images simply don't look as good as they could.

I thought the scanner is off focused. Could it happen? What is the best way to test it?

It's certainly possible, but it's hard to tell from looking at the web images. Does your scanner have a focus/autofocus function? Check the software documentation and see what it says about focusing your scanner.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 11, 2002.

It is a Nikon 8000 scanner, it has an autofocus and calibrate functions. I have tried both but the result is the same. For that image, if I have off focused the eye, would I be able to see a focused point somewhere is the picture? But I can't find that focus point. I compared the sharpness of your photo with mine, I can't believe I am using the same lens.

For 35mm slide, would you recommend not to scan over 2000dpi. The high the dpi ( say 3000-4000 ) the more noisy I get from the scanner. Is it true? Or is it before of the scanner. Your photo looks so smooth, why?

I used to shoot landscape with film, and now I am moving on with Digital stuff. It has been a nightmare with all those color management, profile.

-- Phyllis (phyllam@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

Look at the full-res scan and try to find a region in the blanket to the child's left where the texture of the fabric is clearly defined. If you can see well-defined individual threads, then your scanner is probably focused correctly.

It may be that camera shake is taking a serious toll of sharpness. When Steve mentioned it, I was thinking about subject movement, but if your hands aren't steady, 1/125 may not be a high enough shutter speed for sharp results. (Babies make me nervous!!)

The appropriate scanning resolution depends on what you're going to do with the image. If I'm scanning an image which won't be subject to much cropping and which is unlikely to be printed larger than 9 x 12 inches, I typically use a resolution of 1800 dpi--that's enough for a good inkjet, and the 12 MB files are much more manageable with my 3-yr-old computer than 50 MB files. Even at 1800 dpi, film grain is apparent in 100-speed slides film.

I've been struggling with my scanner for over half a year (and others before that), and I'm still figuring out how to get the best results. As you noted, digital has its own, steep learning curve.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

Thank you so much, Mike.

I guess I will be very busy to do some testing this weekend. Oh, if I take some picture with flash, that should eliminate all the movement ( no matter camera or subject ) Right?

-- Phyllis (phyllam@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.