Bill Pearce wrote:
"Always pay for good film and processing. With all the money we spend on
equipment, good film and processing are cheap, don't skimp."
I'd like to think that Skip learned this from one of my many impassioned
posts, but I'm sure he knew it long before. This is the thing that drives me
nuts. Sure, I sometimes use the drugstore, for unimportant snapshots, but I
go to a real pro lab for my chromes and stuff.
Obviously, quite a few of us know that quality film and processing are
essential to quality results. All my film except for the very rare
experiment, goes to a photoshop with a decades long record of reliable
quality work.
How, I ask, can people (especially the semi-regular posts on photo.net)
judge a camera or lens with drugstore processing? Moreover, how can anyone,
and I mean anyone, judge color from a print?
When the whole point of the photographic exercise is the final print,
that is the only meaningful place to judge color.
I do take, and heartliy agree with, your point that color in consumer
prints, and here I include all mass produced machine prints, is an
extremely unreliable indicator of what may be on the film.
I've posted this link before
<http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/Portra160NC/index.htm>. It shows
the results from Portra 160NC in a Kodak Royal Processing print (not
even 'drug store') and a proper film scan. Not much similarity!
There's a hundred times more
range from one end of acceptable to the other with color balance than with
lenses and film.
Whew, got that off my chest!
So much lighter now...... must try not to float away.........
Moose
< 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 >
|