> Maybe you are. I haven't noticed anyone joining your chorus.
I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness. Uh oh, he got beheaded.
In theory, a fully calibrated process, from input to output, will
provide the photographer or art director a perfectly predictable
image always.
What we are doing, in our RAW converters is applying our own
preferential offset to achieve a calibration to what our eyes want to
see. Is this any different than our selecting films for tasks?
However, even at that, there will always be variences. Settings that
are used in one raw converter won't be the same in another.
Chuck, in looking at your workflow process, mine isn't really any
different. The primary difference is the camera source and maybe the
final printer.
I was stewing about this curves thing the other day when I was
scanning some FUJI REALA. This film has the uncanny ability to
"correct" mixed lighting. It would be so neat to have a digital
sensor that did the same thing. Why is it that digital imagers are
so sensitive to color temperature whereas film seems to give you much
more latitude?
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|