T
theo
I mean 126 film base grain/cloud was better than their cameras' lenses,
and their users had no concern for focus and depth of field, and often
nor for need for flash illumination. For content, what matters to my
generation and our parents' generation and to not my children but does to
their children is THE STORY with and behind the picture. ( Yes, that's my
mother, she looks different than she does now in her hospice room, yes?
and next to her is her twin Mortimer who survived two tours in submarines
in the Pacific against the Japanese but died of black lung 27 years after
going back into the mines in Pennsylvania. So when you fill out your
school health forms you don't have to acknowlege a heridary link to
pulmonary disease because his had an external etiology...) But those
explanations cannot overtake the pace ahead of the instant flash on the
DVD/TV of the color cast and skin tones, which is a different thread.
In the median of the scanning, go for the ANR glass for the best you can
be, but my audience is quite forgiving of moire and newton rings and
fingerprint smudges and dust and scratches (nevertheless, SHOUT OUT to ASF
and Kodak for DICE and GEM and ROC !!!) and... so long as the color cast
is approximate. And that is not optimum within scanner bundled s/w but
better control within PSE/PSP/PS/ACDSee/++++ manipulations. Time versus
tweaking versus expectations, and I've written often already about
opportunity costs.
Regards,
Theo