On 3/22/06 6:13 AM, "Paul Stenquist", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken didn't mean "flat" as in lacking contrast. He meant that he finds > that analog prints have more of a three dimensional look. I don't see > that, but he may well have a more discriminating eye. > On Mar 22, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> I've got to agree. When I have flat images, it's because I didn't >> post processing them properly. You should work on those skills, >> rather than relying on the lab to do that for you by using film. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce Thank you for many people who pointed out many things, mostly my fault part :-). It was very late in the night when I posted it and looking at my post now, there are a few critical things missing in order to properly interpret what I was trying to say. No, I do not have any more critical eye than anyone else here, but I am a bit fussy about the "print". I do not wish to take up a lot of space here, but I was trying to determine if what I was observing might be observed by others too. Apparently not :-). 1. I have been a PS user for more than a decade and in fact, one of the things I enjoy is the manipulation of the imageries digitally, although I am getting very lazy these days. There are days when I really into the post processing but they are far and between these days. 2. Many people enjoy digital images on the monitor screen but I always try to print them for my family members to see. Unless I take some planned and deliberate shots I love nature shots, portraitures in my crude garage studio and some macro shots, particularly when the shots are snap shots of family outing etc, I tend to skip the post processing and bring the cards to my favourite lab (they are indeed a pro lab, not that I chose them for that reason but they are just close by). Of course before I bring the cards, I go through all shots on the computer, delete redundant one, make some basic processing such as unsharp mask, brightness/contrast or hue adjustment etc but not too deliberately. 3. I am not at all "anti-digital" and in fact, my film camera usage is less than 10%. Perhaps my post came out sounding too strongly against the digital :-). When my family look at the prints from film and the digicam, they cannot tell the difference. I sometimes see (I think) the subtle difference and it very well come from the lack of detailed post processing on some of those snap shots. 4. I have to admit though that I might have developed a bit of prejudice over the digital image as I got so frustrated that we could not find the reason to get rid of the big TV, buying instead the digital (plasma) TV. I see the definite difference in the rendering of the images on plasma and CRT, not just with the rear projection but with other regular TV. Maybe I am the minority but many of my buddies think so too. It may have to do with the big thick glaring protective glass in front of plasma which is doing it, maybe not. Or, unlike the DSLR, default image rendering of these TVs may not be good enough for critical (or somewhat biased) eyes, I do not know. 5. I certainly have a nostalgic sentiment to the film cameras, which also tend to make me shoot more deliberate and considered shots. Anyway, thank you for your comments. I mixed up too many things and thoughts in my late night post. Cheers, Ken
