In a message dated 11/12/01 8:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM > Subject: Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry > shadow detail > > > > > > > Hmm, I seem to recall that once I have the color balance dialed into the > > enlarging head, I can expose about 12 8x10 (or other size) prints a > minute, > > producing 60 8x10s, dry-to dry prints in about 37 minutes. > > " How about two weeks later? Or maybe two months? After you get the new > balnce you can knock them out, but it will take a little time to set it up > again..." > > I record every prodcution value for every negative I use. Thus, when I ahul that negative or one form the same strip of negatives, I only have to dial in the recorded values, shoot a test strip or two and proceed. Takes minutes.
> Maybe what you say counts if one has a poor or B&W negative and must dodge > > and burn parts of it. > > My own experience with digital is that even the quality in the SONY Mavica > > leaves images with much to be desired once uploaded, nearly every image > > needing some sort of "tweaking" before you can print them. > > "True, but the Mavica sucks, don't judge digital by the worst it has to > offer" I truly didn't (don't). > > Even then, what you get out of the printer (any) is ~NEVER~ what you see > on > > the monitor. ~Each~ digital image comes out different and take more time > to > > "finish" than chemical prints. > > " You have a badly calibrated system. Do you maintain the same temp for > you color processing? Then perhaps you should also calibrate your monitor to > your printer." You advice does not obviate my observation. > That does ~not~ take into account the sorry > > shadow detail in digital prints (and slides), no matter what kind of flash > is > > used. > > **Ever seen a digital print made from a slide with poor or no shadow > detail? > > You'd lose your lunch! > > " Actually, if the scanner can get the detail, you can have much better > shadow info than in a traditional print. This is because you can control the > contrast of different luminosities separately (and then the luminence of > each color can be changed independantly). In other words, I can increase or > decrease the shadows' contrast information without touching the highlights. > Try that in a darkroom!" As you say, shooting a good negative stops all that. > > ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes > print > > three-four-five "tests" to get one "good" print, who says digital is > > "comparable" in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course, > one > > uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips. > > " There shouldn't be any tests after properly calibrating your system..." > Shouldn't be, but the best laid plans... <g> Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
