Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Wheatfield Willie Writed, and I interspersed my comments:
Snipped much interesting discussion....
>
>
> To sum up, I said that if the subject has a short contrast
> range, the extra latitude afforded by negative film is not
> needed and that under certain circumstances, one can get
> better quality prints by using transparency film than by using
> negative film.
>
> You said: "In a short range scene, 5 stops or less, slide film
> would definitely have the edge ..."
>
> So where do we disagree?
I do have some experience here, so I'll throw in my 2 cents, based on that experience.
1. As a custom color printer in San Francisco some years ago, I was never asked to
make a professional print from a
negative smaller than 4x5. Every customer, mostly pros working for a living, shot 35
mm and medium format transparencies.
2. Even a 4x5 negative begins to fall apart at museum mural sizes (40 x 60 or larger)
when it's viewed closer than 10
feet.
3. The average 16 x 20, 20 x 24, or 30 x 40 display print these customers wanted was
best served by a 4x5 masked or pre
flashed interneg from a 35 mm transparency. (We're talking type 'C' prints here, or
duplicate display sized
transparencies, nothing "R" or Ilfa or Ciba)
4. Who is making a living from shooting negative film, other than weddings and
portraits? Everyone I know who takes gear
and film out on a job, or shoots fashion, food, products, etc., in a studio, uses
transparency film. (Except the digitally
converted)
5. QED: Those who have to do it right for display or publication use transparency
film, from 35 mm to 8 x 10. They must
know something!
My money is spent.
--
JoMac, Imagineering Head
Image * I * Nation, the creative division of RMG Services NW
\__/
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
