Oh yeah! Now I get it. :-) 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 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT) > >I suppose we could throw this back and forth from now on. Not that >these sorts of discussions are not interesting, it's that I'm sure with >both clearly see the other's point. Right? >That last comment was a "clever" response to your "I will not be..." >parting comments. >Re-read it now and you'll break-up. Funny, HUH? .-)) > >Jack > >--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Jack, > > > > It's not my intent to satisfy those folks. I do however think Velvia > > has > > the ability to more accurately render some scenes than others. It > > may > > indeed be garish when photo after photo displayed side by side has > > the look. > > > > The other thing is, when looking at a digital representation of a > > film > > image,it's hard to tell exactly how the original image was rendered > > on film. > > It's not hard to make any digital color rendering exhibit > > Velvia-like > > characteristics. > > > > I don't get your last comments.... > > > > 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 09:21:23 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >Hi, Tom. Thought you'd be up pretty soon. :) > > >Of course there are those looking for "brought up" images and if > > it's > > >your intent to satisfy these folks, (sales, kudos, etc) knock > > yourself > > >out. I do marvel at Velvia's resolution. > > >Will you accept a radio collar? How about being "labeled" a famous > > >photographer. I'll squash that rumor if you'd like.(?) > > > > > >Jack > > > > > > > > >--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > > >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 > > > > >__________________________________________________ >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
