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: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding

On Sat, 19 May 2001 16:16:16 -0400  Johnny Deadman 
(john@pinkheadedbug.com) wrote:

> Tone to me is the look of a correctly exposed non t-grain bw 4x5 
> negative
> developed using a compensating developer and printed on unglazed glossy 
> FB
> paper. Quite what that has to do with chroma and hue angle I'll leave 
> you to
> figure out. But it is a fundamental mistake to think that 'accurately'
> capturing chromas and hues is where the game is at photographically. 
> Yes,
> maybe it is for certain kinds of product shot, but throughout history
> photographers have cherished and exploited the non-linearities of their
> medium. Why else do we use different emulsions?

I have to agree with this. Most commonly, film maintains a steeper 
contrast gradient through the midtones, and compresses shadows and 
highlights - which tends to give a much more pleasing representation to 
most subjects. If you have other intentions, you alter exposure and/or 
processing to use different parts of the curve. 

This is my main objection to Timo Autiokari's linear-gamma fundamentalism, 
or for that matter Prof Charles Poynter's advocacy of non-linear gamma. 
Which approach to use should depend on the image and intentions of the 
photographer. Digicams restrict this too, though they need not - someday 
we'll get digicams which  produce 16bit files, and be able to muck about 
forever in PS. Until then, film+scanning has that edge.


Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.