I agree, in general, Brian, although I use Fuji slide stuff.
But you don't know what the negative "looked" like compared with the
slide. You were looking (I assume) at the print made by a machine
according to some assumptions of exposure values and colour balance.
If there is one thing I learned from working with aerospace engineers
(pardon me Gary E :>)) and statistical analysts: suspect their
assumptions before you inspect their results.
Chris
At 11:38 +1200 8/9/02, Brian Swale wrote:
Hi folks,
When I advised to use Kodachrome instead of (eg) Fuji Superia print film,
because the contrast is enhanced with the Kodachrome and the colours are
more saturated, I wrote on the basis of experience, not theory.
About a year ago I was photographing red dahlia flowers one morning and
alternating slide & print film; same lens and tripod position. Now, I cannot
say the exposures were exactly equivalent because there could have been
cloud movements that confounded the differences in the few moments
between shots. There probably were. Maybe the lighting had changed
significantly. But for both sets of photos as a whole, looking at
the prints the
reaction is "Hey, that's nice, but ... "; whereas with the slide shots the
reaction is more like "HEY; that's nice.". More saturation, greater range of
colours and lighting intensity, and more detail. More sparkle.
Brian
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
?
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
... a nascent photo library.
< 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 >
|