Thanks to anyone who has replied so far (read them all, but won't reply to all) and anyone who replies in the future.
I must say to find out that color negative film can be so subjective when it is printed has rather astounded me. And appalled me. I mean -- well, I am still figuring out what the photographer can control when taking pictures. The subject What is in the frame The lighting conditions (one can wait for certain light or uses flashes, etc.) The focal length The shutter speed The aperture setting But I was also under the impression the photographer might be able to control color a bit too. There is no doubt that things change color depending on the time of day they are shot (well, things outside). How much a photographer can control color, I'll still have to figure that out -- becoming familiar with different film types combined with different exposures and times of day. I am appalled, because it seems that when it comes to color negatives photography seem to enter the realm of the mystical. i.e. -- Hey, it's subjective what color negative film is, so it's subjective what color the prints will come out. That is like a "black box" system, where no one can see or understand the insides. Well, some of these explanations have explained that black box a bit. But I am also appalled because this is still the condition of color print film NOW. I mean how long have photographers lived with this subjectivity, this "we aren't sure how it will come out" type of situation? How long has color negative film been around? It's rather amazing to me. I was really surprised when the light first dawned that it could be so subjective. Astounded and appalled. Still am. But more enlighed as to why it can be so subjective. Thanks, Doe aka Marnie ;-)
