>>4162089>the digital shot clearly has better IQSure thing. For starters, it doesn't have puebes , dust and weird blobs
>the grain adds lots of noiseSay that out loud a few times. Grain on duplicating film. Adds a lot of noise.
>>4162087>Are you an idiot?Idk, are you?
I'm much more familiar with chonkers like this one, which are used to get spectral sensitivity diagrams. And you still didn't answer, why didn't you print a wedge and then measure it, and instead made the abomination in the OPpost
>disagree with kodakQuite the opposite. I just interpret Kodak's methodology correctly
>If you can see the grain in the scan, that' s as much as you're gonna get out of the film.Are you really a printer or is this just an elaborate troll?
>you haven'tOf course, you're the only one on this board who had
>RescanLe bruh
Nice magenta cast, dust and digital artifacts (again). Can't you for once focus on grain? Or at least get a professional to scan this, preferably on a nikon or a drum scanner
