----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J. Mitchell" <DanielMitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:01 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] First roll of Kodachrome came back... magnificent :-)
> I'm curious -- if you do develop mostly slides, how do you look at the
> pictures and/or show them to others? Is it a matter of using one of those
> little viewers every time, having slide shows, or something else? I shot
a
> roll of slides, and sure, the images were lovely, but then I realised what
a
> pain it would be to ever demonstrate this to people..
Once I tried slides there was no way I could go back to colour print film.
I've done the slide show but I find it to be a bit tedious and usually it's
hard to find a willing audience. Plus, I hate presenting my photos like
this, it's all too formal. So yes, that is a downside. I get around that by
scanning most/all of my photos and putting them on my website. This is a lot
of extra work but it means I can show my photos to any family relatively
easily, but I can show them to anyone else on the net, or to friends and
family that aren't local, so I find that the extra advantages with having my
photos in a digital format outweighs the extra work. Even if I was shooting
colour neg I'd probably want these advantages so I figure I might as well
stick with slides. Plus, I have the advantage that slides are MUCH easier to
store than prints and negs. And, slides are easier to scan than negs (since
it's a positive, you can just throw it on the light table and look at what
the colour really is without having to guess).
> After all, image quality aside, the obvious advantage of negative film is
> that you get a stack of 36/24/whatever pictures at the end that you can
put
> into albums/frames/give to people, and that's all you need; nothing extra
> needed to make them 'work'.
Like I said, I find that the extra work is worthwhile for the advantages
that I gain. I like the better quality and then the scanning gives me a lot
of other advantages over negs, with the slight downside of no prints.
> (oh, another thing I was wondering about -- slides have nicer colours,etc
> than negative film when they're slides -- does this still hold when
getting
> prints made from them? Obviously I'll lose some of the nice luminescent
> quality that comes from a back-lit image, but if I somehow managed to take
> identical shots, onto negative and slide films (of the same ISO rating,
for
> the sake of argument) and printed them both onto equal quality paper,
would
> the slide shot look better? I know there's lots of variables, but is the
> general idea here roughly right, or do the advantages get neutralised as
> soon as the image goes onto paper?)
My local pro lab has an LED printer that takes digital files and then
"prints" them on photo paper by exposing the paper with the LED. Great
continous tone images (since it's exposed with light you can mix the light
to produce any colour instead of being limited to 4 or 6 colours with ink
jets or dye sub) and quality. Plus, since it's a digital process, I get to
scan the slide and make all the adjustments that I want (I have control over
the colour balance) and remove and scratches and dust (no extra charges for
retouching). If you've got a properly callibrated monitor (and assuming the
lab is doing callibrated colour as well) then the results you see on the
screen should match the printed results quite closely. At least that's been
my experience, YMMV.
----
Andrew "frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|