Mafud mentioned:
> >>So, it seems to me that, under certain circumstances, one can get better
> quality prints by using transparency film than by using negative film. It
> may not be cheaper, it may not be easier, and it may require some attention
> to detail, but the
> results are worth it.<<>
>
>
> But...but your argument on favor of using slides for prints flies in the face
> of the widely accepted photographic dictum that slides are better images, at
> least for viewing, because they are 'first generation' images.
> It seems you are now suggesting that somehow a second generation image (a
> print from a slide) is equal to or maybe better than a 'true' second
> generation image (prints from negatives). You must now resolve the obvious
> conflict raging in my simple mind.
> Given that *serious* print film shooters *do* take meticulous care during
> exposures, and given the admitted advantages of greater latitude inherent in
> print film, how would it be possible to obtain a print from a slide that
> could ever approach the image quality and detail of a print made by any of
> the master printmakers on our PDML?
I qualified my statement. I did not say that I am in favor of
using slides for prints. I did say that under certain
circumstances the latitude of negative film is not needed, and
that, in essence, under those circumstances, slides could
produce a superior print than negative film. I also said, as
you quoted above, that it may not be cheaper or easier, and
that it may require close attention to detail. For more on
the subject, see the discussion with Wheatfield Willie. I
think all will become clear.
Please turn off your HTML.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
