Mike Marty <mikemcs.nospamwisc.edu> wrote:Thanks Mike. What confused me is that the two images looked to be>
> Well the first image looks exactly what I saw when viewing the 4000 DPI,
> 56mb TIF file. The dimensions were approximately 5400x3085. It was very
> grainy and ugly. This is the main point of my post. The default image
> looked horrible when scanned at such high resolution.
> The image didn't look nice _unless_ I downsampled to 1024x585 _and_ used a
> slow resample filter.
the same size. So your downsample was 18.96%? Lanczos looked good.
My mistake: I read U for V. So we probably agree that Porta [sic] 400VC> Well remember that I'm using 400VC-- *not* 400UC. By looking at your
> posting history, aren't you a critic of 400VC and a fan of the UC? If so,
> I don't blaim you for disliking the VC. As I tried to make evident, my
> scans were very grainy without applying resampling filters.
is a fairly horrible film for 35mm work. Sometimes I think it might be
grainier than even Max 800. The official PGIs are both 48 but obviously
Kodak Consumer division is lying because Supra 800 is PGI 50 and to my eye
is less grainy than Max 800 GT-3.
All I can figure is that 400VC is for medium-format fashion photographers
who want to bring out colors of clothing while keeping skin tones neutral.
Portra 400UC skin tones might be too warm for this type of work, although
they're smoother due to finer grain. I find 400UC less grainy than 160NC
when underexposed, and only slightly grainer when fully exposed.