Great. Looks like I'm staring down the barrel of another expense to
go along with my newly acquired pursuit of film photography: good
printer, ink, and paper.
Seems there ought to be a way to embed processing instructions in the
EXIF data to tell the machines not to engage in such foolishness.
:-\
On 12/4/2010 11:37 AM, P N Stenquist wrote:
On Dec 4, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote:
Very nice image, Nick.
I didn't realize the Walmart machines "correct mistakes" for the photographer.
How nice of them.
All automatic processing machines average out the values. They're dumb
machines. Don't know there's a light on in a dark place.
Paul
On 12/4/2010 8:33 AM, Nick David Wright wrote:
http://blog.nickdavidwright.net/2010/12/leave-light-on.html
This shot has set in my files since I shot it. It is another example
of why I needed my own scanner. The machine at walmart thought this
photo was a mistake and would make the file so the building was
exposed properly. I tried working with the techs at the lab to get a
better scan but no go. The lit area would scan completely blown out
and the dark building would come back with so much digital noise ...
ugh.
It was horrible. Now, no worries!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
