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




----- Original Message -----
From: rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:52 PM
Subject: 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.

Good question, I can't say I know the answer.  Perhaps it's because
processing varies so much in the real world, and that would make Tony
right and me wrong.  I suppose the standards of NYC pro labs have
spoiled me and warped my perspective on these things.  <g>

Dave




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.