Ah, well when you put it that way, I have to agree with you - although I
would say the same 'difficulty' applies (if anything, more so) to prints
produced from slides. That is, when the end product is the result of two
separate processes (film original, paper final image) and perhaps the
problem is the two processes.
Perhaps you have made a good argument for an E-1, which will produce prints
direct, and to your wife's liking? ;-)
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jez.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 May 2004 17:16
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure
inconsistencies
Piers asked:
> So Velvia, not being a negative film, is objectively 'right' Jez?
It's not so much what is right or wrong but what is predictable and
repeatable. When I use Velvia (for a landscape) I know what to expect (and
others will even be able to guess it's Velvia) but when I use a negative
film without a scanner profile (or a calibrated system) I have to decide
what adjustments to make. And personally I can't - I always end up with a
print that my wife says 'doesn't look right'.
I'm hoping to evolve to a (digital?) camera through to print process that
will add or subtract nothing - the audio purists call their perfect
amplifier 'a straight wire with gain' - and my Holy Grail is the
photographic equivalent!
br
jez
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|