borisanddoris said:

There does seem to be some loss in the shadows on the scan, but again, this could have been artistic. It's hard to really know because it's possible the release prints weren't right either in this regard. Really brings up that old debate of how was a film suppose to look: like the OCN or the release print?

"Supposed to" is a very fluid thing. Maybe the director or DP might have wished it to come out different, and we've seen several prints which look different from later, director-approved video transfers. But on films where the director had creative control all the way through, surely the director (and possibly also the DP) signed off on a fully-timed answer print, upon which the release print processing and timing would be based.

How a film was "supposed" to look, was "meant" to look, how the filmmakers "wanted" it to look are all valid, but how the theatrical release prints actually came out is a concrete historical record that is often forgotten or ignored. The prints may have varied, because of the imperfect nature of photochemical development, but they all have common characteristics. It's like a first edition of a book, or an original pressing of a vinyl record. It is a primary source, even if future releases don't follow it, it is an important historical document.

OK, that was long. I guess my point is, this project is meant to look like the release print, it is from a release print. I've seen 35mm prints, they do have photochemical contrast crush, but it never seems to be distracting when the film is being projected onto a cinema screen. Maybe it's just so much light that the "glow" makes it less evident?