Shel wrote: > > Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg > to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital > file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which > would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do > such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the > life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.
The answer is simple: Most lab techs can't hit their ass with both hands. Halfway decent optical color prints are almost impossible to find. And even if you find a good tech, color, contrast, saturation, and all the other variables are then his decision, not yours. I suffered along with labs for a quarter of a century. Never again. Paul > This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in > response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, > not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it > seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and > reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing > software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the > original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the > concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague > memory? > > Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg > to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital > file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which > would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do > such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the > life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM > > Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware > > > > Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another > > idiotic "film versus digital" debate? > > > > Godfrey > > > > > > On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather > > > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good > > > quality > > > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film > > > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution > > > and > > > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners > > > (sometimes > > > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software > > > to > > > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of > > > the > > > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer > > > (sometimes > > > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a > > > lab > > > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or > > > email - > > > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look > > > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with > > > this picture? <LOL> > > > > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > > >> From: Bob Blakely > > > > > >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing > > > filter > > >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV > > > filter. > > >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to > > > perform > > >> their function. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Bob... > > >> ------------------------------------------------ > > >> "A picture is worth a thousand words, > > >> but it uses up three thousand times the memory." > > >> > > >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like > > > Ansel > > >>>> Adams? > > >>>> > > >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter? > > >>> > > >>> Anti-Aliasing > > >>> > > >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm > > > > > > > >
