Subject: | Re: [OM] Slide film.. overexposure bad or under bad? |
---|---|
From: | "Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu" <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:01:20 -0400 |
Cc: | <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Exactly. Lama "Search out your f-EEE-lings, Luke. You know it to be True." From: "Albert" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx> > I don't remember.. with slide film, is overexposure what you want to > avoid at all costs, or underexposure? <edit> I think overexposure looks a bit worse, > because everything is blown out.. < 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 > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] got a 135/2.8 silvernose, but will I keep it?, Jim Couch |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] I might jump off the OM ship..(A grey card is a great idea!), Fernando Gonzalez Gentile |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] Slide film.. overexposure bad or under bad?, John A. Lind |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] Slide film.. overexposure bad or under bad?, John Hermanson |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |