In the past, live music was the best and still is then come vinyl
records, then we settled for CD's, now the young and uninformed think
Mpeg 3 is great sound, NOT!
Same goes for seeing the real thing to film, to digital being the way to
go, NOT!
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of andrew fildes
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:37 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] negative films, minilabs, etc.........
True Moose but...
I have occasionally had a mini-lab do a process and print for me,
using the enprints as proofs, and then gone on to scan the negs. It
is amazing what disappears between dev and print - negs that had
chemical stains, scratches and godwhat produced quite acceptable
prints over the counter. I'm sure that some version of that Nikon
oblique angle dust spot removal technology is used as a matter of
course so that the lab doesn't have to bother with silly little
inconveniences like cotton gloves, dust-free environments or even
changing the chemistry too often. Consequently resolution is lost as
it always is with 'reduce dust, reduce scratch' technology (think
hi-fi filters too) and has to be restored digitally. Digital
'sharpness' enhancement as with genuine unsharp masking and even
centuries old painting techniques requires the eye to be fooled in
some way. Artifacts are deliberately introduced to create false edge
contrast - I've increased the apparent sharpness of a portrait in
Photoshop simply by selective micro-dodging and burning of the eyes
(very effective incidentally).
So - work dirty, knock out the consequent crap automatically, lose
sharpness in that process, substitute false sharpness effects and the
average customer is delighted. If I ran a minilab, I'd do that. In
the old days you worked dirty, printed directly and hired a good
retoucher. Plus ca change...
AndrewF
(who just watched that really worrisome Robin Williams movie).
>The development process has no digital component, just precise
>chemistry. There is, at least as yet, no way to do anything
>'digital' in the development process. The C-41 process is stable
>technology that hasn't changed in years. It is still possible to
>screw it up through errors in set-up or replenishment, but changes
>aren't made to taylor results to different kinds of customers. The
>serious screwing around starts after development.
>
>Moose
>
>whunter wrote:
>
>>Does anybody know for certain whether this 'digital tinkering' at
>>the processor labs is confined to the prints or ibid to the
>>original negative/slide film development???? No doubt they do a
>>'happy medium' with respect to film development - - whatever that
>>is.
< 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 >
< 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 >
|