At 00:48 12/5/02, Richard F. Man wrote:
Well, there is another variable. The Kodak 100 was "scanned" using the ASF
destroy-your-negative-scanning-station. So possibly it's scanning and the
exposure saving were not top notch. The print looks pretty much the same
as the pics on the CD.
Negatives are inherently much more difficult to evaluate than
transparencies. Not only the negative colors (CMY), but the orange mask
require significant mental manipulation to translate what the eyes see and
brain processes. In addition to this and significant differences in color,
contrast and granularity, C.H. Ling makes a very valid point about the
print versus the negative. A print is a photograph of the film, and just
about everything that can be done to botch the image on film can be done to
botch the print, although the specific method to carry it out might differ
some.
Never underestimate the ability of a printer or scanner operator to uglify
a print made from an outstanding negative. They can do similar mangling of
prints from transparencies, but that's much, much easier to detect with
print in hand while looking at the transparency on a light table.
-- John
< 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 >
|