Your're right, my mistake also. Still I wonder about the whole process,
from scanning to printing. When done right it seems to defy what
should be possible.
ws
At 10:43 PM 1/18/2009, you wrote:
>Sorry, I did not mean to dismiss what you saw or the quality of the
>work. But you seemed to be imbuing the scanner with some mystical
>properties. Your words were: "I'm sure he must have one impressive
>scanner to pull out that much range from the film." I was only pointing
>out that there isn't that much range to be had. I accept that it's a
>wow but I suspect it's very meticulous processing and lighting that
>produces the effect.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|