Thanks. Would shooting with a UV filter and some other kind of
filtration be advisable? I have stages for two 4" x 4" filters in my
matte box. I know looking through that much extra glass is something
most people try to avoid.
As far as Photoshop (or DaVinci) goes, I'd love to, but if I do this
for filmout I'm not going to be able to afford any kind of color
correction at the internegative stage. I'm planning to do this all
with a simple print from negative because of the high costs of
printing 35mm films. It's probably still going to cost more than I
can really afford. ;-)
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Moose wrote:
> Yeah, skip the whole thing and do it in PS. I'd add a smiley here if I
> weren't serious.
>
> The one caveat is if you are doing high altitude shooting in NM, ID
> and
> CO. If so, you need to consider actual warming filters, as their
> effect
> of preventing UV from throwing off color balance in ways that post
> processing can't easily correct.
>
> Short of such a drastic simplification of the process, you could take
> existing or test shots without filter, apply the various filters in PS
> and determine which to use in what kind of subject situations to
> get the
> results you desire. Image=>Adjustments=>Photo Filter. Here you can use
> the 81 series filters for warming to see what they do besides cutting
> back UV.
>
> Moose
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|