Laurie, digital photography in its current implementation is inferior to
AgX systems. And will be much longer. I have nothing against a special film
tuned to scanners. However, the world is dollar/yen/pound/mark driven.
Unless they can make enough profit, they will not introduce it. Technically
it is possible right now, but there is no sufficient number of customers,
ie. profit. You can protest to United nations or the Pope with as much
result. Don't blame me for that, I am just an observer.
At 00:27 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Roman,
>I do not see this as an appropriate answer; actually I think it begs the
>question, except if one assumes that priority is to be given to the
>traditional methods of printing as you seem to want to do. I do not
>criticize you for assigning priority as you have (it is legitimate).
>However, others on this list and elsewhere (I am not necessarily among them)
>think that the priorities are or should be changing with the priority being
>placed on developing a film dedicated to scanning and not traditional
>printing methods. This places the emphasis on changing the film emulsions
>and properties to fit the demands of scanners and CCD sensors rather than
>photographic paper emulsions and color filter packs. Thus they are calling
>for such things as the elimination of orange masks and the like.
>
>That, practically speaking, this will not happen in the sense of film
>manufacturers introducing films dedicated exclusively to scanning in the
>immediate future is something that a previous post indicates we agree on.
>We also agree on the reasons why this will not happen soon given the nature
>of the existing market make-up. However, this is not to deny that those who
>are into scanning of films rather than projection printing of films have a
>legitimate right to desire and want films that are more suited and even
>dedicated to scanning as well as to complain about the fact that this is not
>happening.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich®
>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:00 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask
>
>
>At 08:14 15/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >What you say is true, however, in terms of digital scanning, what matters
> >is not how color photographic paper emulsion responds to the masking, but
> >how the masking might alter the translation of the scan with a digital
> >scanner using an CCD and software. The scanner might respond quite
> >differently from paper emulsions.
> >
> >Art
>
>change scanner :-{)
>
>
>"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
>in Australia".
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
