Scott Gomez wrote:
>I saw the large original post, and I agree with your son, Jonas. I think they
>hashed the scan badly enough that if it were my pocket the charges came from,
>especially at that price, I'd be back at the shop demanding rescans or a
>refund.
>
>
I agree it's not a particularly good scan - but hashed? As I pointed out
in my reply, all the dynamic range is there. And sharpness is all the
size of the scan can carry. It's a little washed out, but that's better
than too contrasty with highlights and shadows gone. At least everything
is there and can be rearranged
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Eau.htm>.
Compare that to the shot Martin Walters posted. There, all the
highlights were simply gone. Nothing to be done to revive it. Although
not sure of the definition, I think that one could be called "hashed"
As to price, it sounds expensive converted to dollars. Hard to tell,
though. Way back when I studied international economics and less long
ago when doing international business, I found that comparisons of local
domestic purchases of goods and services on the basis of converted
currencies was pretty meaningless and often misleading. It turns out to
be a tricky business of relating disposable income after housing and
other major, ongoing expenses and looking at the % of that number
represented by the item being studied in each country. Or something like
that. :-) Taxes, subsidies and levels and types of govt. vs. private
services make much of the difficulty.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|