|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
> >I've settled on Fuji Reala and Roayl Gold 100, and >still waiting for a *really* convincing argument >to go with slides. Color. What you see on the light table you can tweak the preview of the filmscanner to match (if possible, sometimes impossible). Try that with negatives. These days I am shooting flowers. I can tell you I have great trouble with color. What I see on the monitor, my trusty epson will print. But for a real to life print I need some way to know how the real colors were. The goal in this kind of photography is real colors, not super-saturated and 'corrected' colors. Closer to life I tried was some kodachrome but I had trouble finding a good lab. Astia/Sensia overexposed slightly is my choice. Even the mighty reala which I love dearly, can do some really weird stuff with delicate tones. My monitor can show them, sort of, my epson can print them (*f1) - so my film must be able to record them with accuracy. It is hard enough that the gamut of my monitor is different from my printer and both of them have nothing to do with reality, lets not make it harder. And yes, 'cheap' filmscanners don't scan slides well. *f1: I had a -terrible- experience with violet and purple wildflowers. It was heartbreaking. Sergios. -------------------------------------------------- Alternative Factor http://www.altfactor.gr - Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the excess. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users