|
|
|
Roger Cotgreave
{K:15892} 2/25/2004
|
very nice kim looks sharp to me. I know what you mean about my flower shot...I didn't real notice the grass myself until it was compressed. I have just been outside right now to take some more...thanks roger
|
|
|
|
James Philip Pegg
{K:10138} 2/16/2004
|
kim,
Ilove the colours, a wonderful shot!!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Goldstein
{K:21230} 2/12/2004
|
I think the most notable aspect to this means of displaying your image is the mild color shift that is apparent. Your image appears to have a mild yellow tint. The sharpness is ever so mildly soft, but nothing major.
|
|
|
|
|
Becky V
{K:9699} 2/9/2004
|
Looks pretty tack sharp to me! Colour me impressed - I didn't think you'd be able to do it! Will we soon see all your great slides here? I'm giddy with anticipation.
Looking at the whites in this photo again, I am detecting a bit of grain. It could be my tired eyes, though. How much sharpening did you do in PS, if any? Also, on the close-up, there's a bit of pixelation around the edges of the petals.
As for the photo itself, I love the vivid colours and the greens against the dark background. I'd like to see that bit of brown on the left cloned out, though. It kind of looks like someone has hung bacon on the foliage. ;p
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 2/9/2004
|
Ahh, gotcha! Light up the back of the slide, use the original and take a macro (with the digital camera) of that. It just could work! Definitely worth trying! Thanks for the suggestion!
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/9/2004
|
p.s. I don't think the close-up crop is terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/9/2004
|
Hi Kim - I'm the one who needs to read more s-l-o-w-l-y... The macro is for the original shot (duh, slap forehead), got it! Now, if you can get close to the slide with your digital camera and fill most of the frame with some macro-setup with that camera, I think you'd have a better shot (was that intentional?) at digitizing your slide. All you need is some decent backlighting and a correct white balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 2/9/2004
|
Sharpness is lost when a full reso crop is shown... but, if I never need to crop and am never going to print it from this medium, I might be okay....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:37070} 2/9/2004
|
Stefan, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your process ... The original image was taken with the zoom with the macro filter mounted on it at a conservatory. When the slide was processed and mounted I borrowed the work digital camera and shot the image projected onto the wall.
Sorry that I don't understand what you're trying to get across to me... digital isn't really my thing, so write s..l...o..w..l..y.. hahahhahaha
Steven... I am a lover of film and haven't yet given over to the power of digital. I'm just looking for a way to upload images without scanning them through my horrible flatbed scanner. That, and the digi camera is borrowed from work.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 2/9/2004
|
At this resolution it looks great - really! How about showing a full resolution crop of the image. The use of your macro lens does not make sense to me - how large was the projected image? If you can do macros that are sharp across a plane near enough to capture most of the slide directly you can make a slide copier by mounting them in front of your camera with backlight for illumination. That type of copier is even commercially available (I think), but you could probably put something together yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
{K:7142} 2/9/2004
|
Surpringly sharp for the process, but why not just take the digital to the garden?
|
|
0 
