Hey Alin, Rugby Shmugby.. I don't follow it, though some mates arranged an outing to the World Cup to catch Scotland vs. USA.. didn't look too good for the States losing to a team whose fans were mostly a bunch of hairy legged men in skirts with lots of makeup ;) Eitherway.. I'm not even Aussie.. :) I just live here. Home's supposed to be back in boring ol Singapore (not as exotic as the cocktail makes it out to be) but doubt I'll be living there after I'm done here. Anyway, with regard to "lack of dynamic range/noise also makes me suspect the slide was too dense for the scanner", it wasn't a scanned slide- it was a print from slide film, and I assure you the print looks just like the scan.. kinda like a watercolour. I'm quite fond of Assimilation myself.. I liked the version in my B&W folder enough to spend a heap on framing it after it was the first successful attempt in the darkroom. Doesn't match anything so it hasn't got wallspace though.. Maybe one day someone will want to buy it ;) Thx for looking though! Cheers, Ryan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:47 PM Subject: Re: x processing EPJ/photo.net/canon users > > 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! > >
