Wait a second Jack, am I reading you right? There's a good reason to use Velvia?
My contention has always been that Velvia is frequently appealing because it *brings the image up* in the viewers mind to the level where one doesn't think "the picture doesn't do it justice". Tom C. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Some images... >Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:35:31 -0700 (PDT) > >Totally agree! > >Jack > >--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jack Davis" > > Subject: Re: Some images... > > > > > > It's the "choice" of a large segment of the viewing public. I've > > always > > noticed that Pop Photo's Pentax 645 shooting Fitzharris (sp) or the > > editor's, 'real' them down considerably. Resolution is, IMO, the only > > reason to shoot Velvia. > > > > It does make cheap zoom lenses look good...... > > When Velvia was introduced, there was nothing like it on the market. > > The > > reason it did so well was because if you put a "normal" Ektachrome or > > > > Fujichrome beside it on a light table, the colours really popped out > > by > > comparison. > > Art directors liked this, it was like 1 Hour Kodachrome. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
