Subject: | [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure inconsistencies |
---|---|
From: | "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 25 May 2004 15:53:20 +0100 |
So Velvia, not being a negative film, is objectively 'right' Jez? Piers -----Original Message----- From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jez.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 25 May 2004 15:37 To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure inconsistencies --snip My real hate of negative film is that without an accurate profile, it becomes subjective as to what is 'right' --snip ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: source for PX625 mercury batteries?, Winsor Crosby |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure inconsistencies, jking |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure inconsistencies, Jez . Cunningham |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: scanning print negatives and scanner exposure inconsistencies, Jez . Cunningham |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |