Hi Ryan, Now how nice would you expect me to be after that ruthless rugby lesson we got from you Aussies right at Brisbane! ;o) I think it's not the pic per se, rather the technical question marks: the saturation is there but there's also this scarcity of shades that once ditched my own negatives when I had fun having it developped in E6. The lack of dynamic range/noise also makes me suspect the slide was too dense for the scanner. On the other side, I like the Assimilation very much. Servus, Alin
Ryan wrote: RL> So I tried x-processing some Ektachrome EPJ 160T, and came up with a shot a RL> quite like here: RL> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1843166 RL> the tech details are on the page, but the thing I'm a bit annoyed with is RL> that despite me loving the result, noone else seems to share the sentiment RL> (judging by the measly ratings). I like the blown out highlights (dare I say RL> bokeh..) and the saturated colours amongst other things. So what's wrong RL> with it? RL> For a moment I thought maybe it was just a bad photograph and hours of RL> staring at the screen and the photo had made it look better in my mind. Then RL> in a conspiracy theory mode I thought it was Canon users snubbing a Pentax RL> user, and I checked, and yes! all the bad ratings were done by damn RL> Canoners! So I went to check one of my better pics: RL> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1659027 RL> and though the majority of non Canoners were more lenient, it so turned out RL> that some Canon users gave good ratings too- but.. Canon users accounted for RL> more than 95% of the names of people who even bothered to give a rating. We RL> all know photonet's P.Greenspun doesn't have many good things to say about RL> the Pentax camp, but could it be it's just one huge undercover Canon RL> society? RL> How do we curb this infestation!
