Very interesting. So, the is realy yellowish, right? When shooting slides, colour temperature is an issue too, I believe :-). Jens
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. maj 2005 17:24 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Digital profligacy The young lady at the local Wal-Mart Minilab as so happy. She told me she had a hard time getting all the yellow out of my photo of a tan hat... Wal-Mart print: http://meanderings.graywolfphoto.com/_images/walmart-hat.jpg Uncorrected scan of negative: http://meanderings.graywolfphoto.com/_images/my-block.jpg Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Luckily I only wanted a scan to send to the guy who had given me the hat to show how it had cleaned up. Both images are uncorrect scans. Note how off the exposure looks in the print. The negative shows that I did better than that. In a way these two images are a pro-digital argument. But bad printing is not a real problem as I could have insisted that they redo the print correctly. If I do not so insist it is my problem, not theirs. It does show how hard it is to evaluate exposure from minilab prints by inexperienced photographers. With digital however it is just as hard. An experienced photographer can read the negative and know who is at fault. How do you do that with digital, there are so many varitables involved before you can see a readable image. The real advantage with slides for a beginner is that he can see exactly what he shot, though that can be pretty frustrating to start, eventually he learns to get his exposure within 1/3 stop in most lighting conditions. Of course if one depends on the camera to do that... Well, Bill, explained all that better than I could. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- William Robb wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > Subject: Re: Digital profligacy > > >> I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, not having read all the >> posts, risking ridicule. >> >> I personally doubt that autoexposure, autofocus, etc., etc., etc, has >> led to a decline in quality of photographs taken. Sure some people, >> alot of people, who take photographs don't ever learn exposure for >> example. Technology makes it easier for more people not to learn it, I >> agree. But so what. Would they have otherwise? Probably not. Alot >> of people just take pictures and it's not because they consider >> photography to be a hobby or passionate pursuit. They just snap the >> shutter, never mind composition. I would guess that exposure for >> exposure, there are more good, correctly exposed photographs taken now >> than 30 years ago, 40 years ago, ad infinitum. >> > > Before automation, you had no choice about learning the technical end of > photography. It was part of the game. You learned how to adjust an > aperture and shutter speed to match a needle in the viewfinder. > This, in itself, may seem like a small thing, but it isn't. In the > process of learning how to set the camera to correct exposure, you were > also, by default, learning much of the workings of light itself, which > is what photography is about. > You would be guessing wrong, btw, about properly exposed photographs > taken 3 decades ago vs. today. > Automatic exposure does not necessarily give correct exposure, it gives > a best guess exposure, that guess coming from a rather retarded brain. > > What I find amusing is that over the past 30 years, the skill set > required to be a photographer has changed from learning the rather > simple operation of a manual camera with a grand total of 3 controls to > the more complicated operation of a device with sometimes a dozen or > more buttons, a few dials, a rocker swith, and several hidden and often > inscrutable modes. > You need to know far more about machine operation to run a modern > camera, especially a digital, than you needed to know about photography > when you set everything yourself with a Spotmatic II. > > >> If it is a passionate pursuit, then they will learn. OK, take away >> the in camera light meter, matrix, spot, center. Is anyone seriously >> stating they would get more accurate exposure by not using the meter >> (don't think I'm stating that one should always believe the meter)? >> That they would get a better exposure more often by not using the >> meter? I find that pretty hard to believe. I agree that one may >> learn how to judge exposure better, having acquired a sixth sense >> after viewing many many *poor* exposures. > > > People no longer use light meters. For the most part, they trust their > camera to make the right judgement call, with little or no input. They > walk around an inanimate object taking a dozen or more exposures in the > hope that one may be the right one, and then when they get lucky, they > put up a PESO and say look how wonderful am I? And it only took 16 tries > to get it. > > They may not be wasting film, but they are wasting something far more > precious. > They are wasting their very lives. > >> >> It's all a moot point pretty much, right? If the printer has the >> ability to compensate for exposure variations that fall within a range >> of acceptable to bang-on, and they have that ability *by design*, then >> that's just the other side of the coin, so to speak... exposure can be >> controlled in camera first and out of camera second (don't anyone >> think I'm saying exposure in camera doesn't count, I shoot >> transparencies almost exclusively when using film). From what I've >> read on this list, there's a huge shortage of printers/processors that >> are willing to spend the time and effort to produce properly exposed >> prints. > > > To be fair, there aren't enough people in sufficient concentrations > willing to pay to make it worthwhile to produce top quality prints. > Modern minilabs are not capable of producing 100% accurate colour > anyway. You really have to be willing to settle for (at best) closer to > 94% accurate, and I doubt many labs hit that mark. > > William Robb > > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005
