Doris wrote:
>> When scanning
>> pictures, it's easy to increase contrast digitally, but if shadow and/or
>> highlight detail has been lost due to excessive contrast, you can't recover
>> it.
>
> I'd second this notion. Most of my photographic problems are due
>to excessive contrast, not the lack thereof.
I'd third this notion. I generally use Sensia II, and find that even the
so-called lower contrast emulsions have a tendency to lose detail,
particularly in the shadows. However, SC lenses are not _always_ the answer.
I have a 24 f2.8 that is SC and it demonstrates noticeable flare when I'm
photographing a dark subject with a light source (e.g. cloudy sky or bright
window) on the very top edge of or just outside the frame. However, to
contradict myself, I also have some lovely slides and prints from this and
my SC 35 f2.8. The SC 50/1.4 gets a bad rating, but there are times when its
optical properties suit a specific 'look'. There is more to colour
photography than Velvia and max sharpness/contrast, though I know that, if
you only have one lens of a focal length, you may wish to avoid a 'dog'.
I miss the opportunity to use relatively low-colour grainy emulsions like
Agfa RS1000 and the 1980's Ektachrome ED200 and EL400 for specific subjects.
When they were around I was too poor to experiment with the palette of such
films, and was a confirmed Kodachrome user. I also had only one OM body,
though I've since fixed that bit :-) I am sorry I don't have a freezer full
of such films now, since the choice of palette in colour transparency film
is getting narrower. Kodak's Elite/E100S films and Fujichromes are all very
similar, Agfachrome is moving closer to these, but is too yellow for me, and
that's most of the market. There are differences, but they are small :-(
Simon E.
< 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 >
|