Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

I would defer to Tony. When I said "Different," I didn't mean to imply that 
"Different" is either better or worse, because it's not. It is merely "Not 
Exactly the Same." I have gotten far better pictures from scanning 
underexposed Tri-X than I got in a conventional darkroom. By the same token, 
I've gotten terrible scans from film that a Service had no problem with. 
Most people learn to deal with these differences readily--but not without 
some hard work.

This list is a far better place to learn the information than the magazines, 
I've found. We're doing it, and they're only writing about it. ;-)

Best regards--LRA

>From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +0100 (BST)
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800  youheng (youheng@public1.sz.js.cn)
> > Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical
> > Darkroom's?
>I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. It's just
>different, and different enough to be unable to say which is objectively
>better since what is at stake is your personal preference. All I would say
>is : be prepared for a long and steep learning curve, comparable with
>achieving the best from the chemical darkroom. Perfection by either route
>takes time and effort.
>Tony Sleep
>http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
>info & comparisons

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.