On 15 May 2005 at 8:59, 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>
I guess you should try sending a colour calibrated high res image on a CD/DVD to a lab who has staff that don't adjust files prior to printing and have calibrated profiled printers. I don't care what they think my image should look like so long as I get it back like it looked on my screen. This I could never assure in any analogue process, hell I couldn't even trust pro-labs to crop my images according to instructions, they thought they knew best. A correctly profiled scanner will deliver all the contrast and colour that the film provides within the bounds of the system. What's wrong with the picture you pose is that your digital equipment and work- flow seems to be a weak-point in the chain and you are apparently sending work to labs that still do what they want. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
