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: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme



At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400  Austin Franklin
>> (darkroom@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>> > ...but film
>> > characteristic profiling is different than the "specific
>conditions" you
>> > mentioned above, isn't it?
>>
>> Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable,
>> depending on exposure, processing etc.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tony Sleep
>
>Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this.  Neg films vary primarily in
>the mask layer.  Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
>labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they
>do with E-6.  In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent
>as chrome film.  If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
>studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get
>to the darkroom.  Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or
>lab can't be faulted for that.  But even here color negs vary less
>than chrome films.


Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis.  
My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, 
though my experience with chromes in recent years 
has been limited.

OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer 
professional processing labs, either, and my 
subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light.

If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why 
are those negative-film "profiles" so consistently 
clueless?


rafe b.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.