------Original Message------
From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Sent: May 21, 2001 2:53:00 PM GMT
Subject: 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.
Regards
Tony Sleep
-------------------------------------------------
Sometimes, you guys should use subtitles! ;-)
Best regards--LRA
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
