Quoting AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
> > Some of them Ag Schnozz has already summarized better
> than
> > I could have (I hate it when he does that),
>
> It's an Iowa thing.
Like I said.
> > but I do like how digital greens are rendered, for
> some
> > reason.
>
> Whereas I'm the opposite. I'm really struggling to get
> the
> greens the way I like them. There is no substitute for
> Velvia.
> The only way I've been able to get the greens to land
> right is
> to dial out some blue-channel gamma, but that ends up
> skewing
> everything else.
Surely Gimp gives you some sort of 1:1 color replacement?
I think Photoshop does, but I've never explored it much.
Doesn't seem like a "fine art" kind of activity.
I do know what you mean though. I just think greens get
slung all over the palette with various films. I guess
that's why people have favorite films. My particular
feeling of disappointment is with Kodachrome's black pine
trees against the snow -- though that's lack of dynamic
range rather than color palette.
Perhaps Fred Miranda's Velvia plug-in is available for
Gimp? (doubt it)
> > One apparent difference in taste between us is that I
> > apparently like a little noise. I have literally never
> used
> > NR software on any E-1 photograph that I have printed
> of any >
> size (I can print up to 11 x 14 on my Photo EX).
>
> I wish I could say the same thing. For web-display, I
> may whack
> some noise out. For portraiture prints I'm leaving things
> alone.
> Anything ISO 400 and above does 'usually' benefit from
> some
> noise-reduction.
>
> AG
I'll take your word for that. :)
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|