Hi folks,
I've been here but lurking for quite some time. 'cuz I spent a good portion
of the day going through slides and getting prints made, I thought I'd pipe
up.
Prints/Slides? Acer asks. Good question.
To be honest I've seldom shot negs that weren't disappointing. Granted part
of the problem is that even when I get them printed at a custom lab, I'm
still evaluating machine prints. As I've had the same experience w/ B&Ws
(getting back flat, dull prints from perfectly good negs), I should know
better, should simply ask for contacts. But I don't.
On the other hand chromes are less than perfect--often a hassle to view and
expensive to print. This said, there is something magical about seeing even
mundane images on well exposed--velvia or 100VS. (True portraiture is less
than lifelike w/ these films--but I tend to shoot people in B&W). And with
a good loupe, it's much easier to see what you've actually got (I still
don't "read: colour negs all that well). The fact that I've got thousands
of slides on file does not bother me as much as the shoe boxes full of
prints I've got. Any time I feel like it, I can pull out the light table or
projector and go back through the slides, which is something I rarely do w/
prints.
So this was the classic impasse. Prints for easy viewing; chrome for
aesthetic reasons. But then things are changing aren't they? While I
haven't used photoCDs, I've recently been turned on to genius of LED prints
for digital scans of slides. Cibas are gorgeous, but finickity and
expensive. LEDs, at least where I go, are relatively easy and half the
price. Suddenly I can afford to print up a storm, and my neglected archives
have become a renewed source of pleasure.
Does this help? I doubt it but if it were an easy answer we'd all be
shooting exactly the same film, souped the same way, and printed at the same
size.
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: Acer V <siddim01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Zuikoholics (In)Anonymous <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: April 17, 2000 9:44 PM
Subject: [OM] advice: print or slide, ultimately to go on PhotoCD
>Hi. I'm about to quit getting prints and scanning those on a flatbed. From
>now on, PhotoCD (anyone know of older versions of PhotoShop available
>used?). So, given that ultimately the images are going to to onto a
>PhotoCD, then web display, is there a reason to shoots slides or
>prints? Slide means less latitude. It would be nice to project them, but
>will it be worth it to stick to print for the added information they'd
>hold? The really nice negs will get printed on photo paper from the CD or
>into photographic prints, really nice slides will be made into Cibas, or
>again, inkjet prints. I don't mind cost since I don't shoot all that
>often.
>
>Slide or Print? If print, suggestions for films (will Kodak scan Fuji as
>well as their own films?) Thanks.
>
>/Acer V
>--
>If you can kick it, it's hardware.
>If you boot it, it's the OS.
>If after you boot it you want to kick it, it's Windows.
><http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01> proudly hand-coded :)
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|