Acer Victoria <siddim01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
spake thusly:
> :The "uncorrected" print is a myth, IMAO.
>
> Mind explaining this bit? TIA
I don't hold much faith in the idea that there is a single
distinguised "uncorrected" exposure that will print a whole roll as
the photographer envisaged it.
Negative film holds so much more information than can fit on a print
that the printing process becomes unavoidably subjective.
Personally, I like to scan the negatives rather than fight a
minilab--the difference between good and bad exposure shows up when
you try to get a useable scan. I only have (access to) a dodgy
flatbed scanner with TMA---shots for display still get printed in the
dark.
cjb.
p.s. OTOH, I find myself using less and less colour negative film.
E100 and T400CN are my staples for now (superia 400 or 800 otherwise).
--
------------------ Linux hackers do it in protected mode -------------------
| Christopher Biggs - Software Engineer, Stallion Technologies, Australia |
| chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - CEO, J.Random Deadguy Institute for Weird Studies |
------- Mathematics and alcohol don't mix --- Never drink and derive -------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|