I agree with Bill. However it should also be noted that using a film with several stops more exposure latitude allows decent print to be made from negatives with guite a bit of under or over exposure.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: Re: prints contrast question > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mishka" > Subject: prints contrast question > > Crystal archive, like all photo papers, is pretty limited in range, I think > around 32:1, perhaps a bit less. This translates into a 5 stop or slightly > less range. > Modern colour print films will capture as much as 8 stops of exposure. > If you are shooting in harsh conditions, (not knowing what conditions you > were shooting in, I can only guess), then the paper is just not able to > capture the full range of the film without custom printing. > Pro papers have a longer range, getting up to 64:1, but still won't print as > much as the film sees. > > You can get the stuff printed, but you have to go custom, and get the > highlights burned down. This has always been the way it is with colour > printing. If the paper has too long a range, then the bulk of the work > printed on it will look muddy, so they have to compromise and let the > extremes go. > I they don't, then most peoples photos will look ugly, which won't sell. > Most of the time, it works pretty good, but if you are photographing the > Grand Canyon at high noon, you are going to have problems. > > William Robb > > > > does anyone know, how much contrast can color paper (specifically fuji > > crystal archive) handle? > > the reason i am asking is that i just came back from a vataction and got > > back a batch of prints. which do suck by any definition of it: no shadow > > detail, blown out highlights. true, the original light was pretty harsh, > > still i was very upset. until i looked at a bach of slides i took under > the > > same conditions. which were nothing like the prints! > > now i am scanning the print film, i notice that often i cannot get the > whole > > dynamic range with a single pass (nikonscan 4000), i have to scan once for > > shadows and once for highlights. but altogether it looks like the film > > captures most of the dynamic range of the scene. > > my question is: what's the point of so wide lattitude of print film, if it > > cannot be printed anyway (in pre-scanner era)? or, is it just a > particularly > > bad kind of paper i ran into? > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > > > >
