Ken Norton wrote:
> Mark the date down. The Schnozz admits error! (also note, that Moose
> indicated his absence, so maybe I can get away with this without too much
> grief)
>
An AG error, while not a weekly occurrence, is no surprise. ;-)
Admision is much rarer, but no unheard of.
> Lately, I've been promoting film like it's going out of style. Oh, wait, it
> is. Anyway, I've worked hard this past year on settling in on a selection of
> decent color print films. For the record, here are my favorites and why I
> like them.
>
I'm sure your evaluations will be of interest and assistance to some
film folks. I shoot very little film nowadays, and only one of your list
is one I also shoot.
However, the real reason for my reply is the missing proviso(s), which
are, I think, important.
All of these experiences are significantly dependent on several tool and
workflow issues:
- Scanner used
- Software used for scanning.
- User settings.
- User skills.
A couple of simple examples:
- Although we both have 4000 dpi 35 mm film scanners, mine has a diffuse
light source and yours has a relatively coherent light source. Thus,
they reproduce grain and dust differently and may well have subtle edge
differences.
- I use icc film profiles for all my recent and contemporary color neg
scanning. As result, many of the color differences you see between films
in your scans simply aren't there in mine.
I'm not saying that there is any absolute right on these points, nor
that either of us is right or wrong. I am saying that someone using
different equipment, software and technique that you do might well
experience different results.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|