I take it this would not be the case were you to receive 'RAW' files vs.
.jpg? Or is the processing totally geared towards .jpgs?
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:04:24 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Digital print quality has more to do with the customer than with the lab.
Results vary based on the customer.
Please explain. I think I have an idea... the digital file received may
be of any resolution or size vs. a "standard" negative... Thank you.
Film to print has a lot more variables controled by the lab. We can process
the film well, or poorly. We can scratch the film, or otherwise mar the
image in a great variety of ways.
We can print it well, or poorly as well.
Digital files are mostly finished images that get to have the start button
pushed and not much else. If we try to make big changes to the colour or
density, they can go pretty strange The reality is, I actually have less
control with digital than with film by the time I am getting down to making
prints.
The customer is responsible for the resolution being great enough, the
white balance being correct, the image compression not being too great, and
the exposure being close to correct.
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality than with
film print quality because of customer misintervention of the process.
William Robb
