Roman,
I am reading this and laughing; but not at you. I am laughing because for
the life of me I cannot figure out what we are really arguing about in that
we are in agreement on most of the points. I agree that currently digital
photography at its present stage of development leaves much to be desired
especially the low and medium ends) and that it is in most cases inferior
at present to AgX systems. I am not a fortune teller so I do not know if it
will remain this way in the near, intermediate or long range future.
Obviously much of this will depend on economics as well as technical
engineering. I also have agreed with you in our earlier posts and agree
with you now that it is not out of necessity for technical reasons that a
dedicated exclusive scanning film has not been developed and marketed but
mainly for practical economic reasons. While this tends to be the case
historically that things will not be produced and marketed if the market is
to small and specialized to make it profitable as a mass production item, it
has not always in every case been such. Your infrared example illustrates
that specialty films are produced and marketed even if their is a relatively
small market as long as that market is found to be willing to pay the
premium price or the company is trying to get a leg up on the competition in
PR terms.
With all due respect, I am not protesting the situation or the actions of
the manufacturers at all; nor am I blaming you for anything substantive.
What I am taking you to task for are three things. First, I am taking you
to task for responding as if I were engaging in making demands for a
dedicated scanner film and in protesting the lack of such a film, which I am
not nor have I. Second, I am taking you to task for portraying and reacting
to my posts as if I were blaming you for anything - especially for the fact
that a dedicated scanner film is not being actually produced and distributed
now. And thirdly, I am taking you to task for what I often see as an
unwillingness on your part to assume and understand the viewpoint of those
who are seeking the production and distribution of a dedicated scanner film
for use in the immediate to near future when responding to them.
Namely, rather than discussing the feasibility from a technical perspective
of producing a dedicated scanner film ( you have pointed out the viability
of doing so from an economic perspective) you seem to want to beg the
question by telling them that they need to get the scanner manufacturers to
produce scanners that comply with the requirements of the existing film. I
would respectfully submit that this is less than a satisfactory answer to
their complaints, demands, or questions.
As noted above, it seems to be agreed that it is not technically impossible
to develop such a film; but if it were impossible to do so , this would be a
satisfactory response. The economic response does say why it is not done
even if it is currently possible technically to do so. Thus it is a
satisfactory response to some of the points that the scanner people raise.
While developing better work-arounds is a legitimate partial response, it
also begs the fundamental questions being asked; but shifting the onus
totally onto the software developers and scanner manufactures is not really
acceptable as a adequate or legitimate response to otherwise legitimate
questions. If you are saying that the reasonable answer or response to the
scanner people's points is that both the film manufactures and the scanner
manufactures and the software developers need to all get together and
develop their products so that they are not only compatible but capable of
producing high quality easily accomplishable results in a profitable way,
this would be a response that I think would be satisfactory and legitimate
as well as one that does not beg the fundamental questions.
However, returning to the beginning, I still think that we are not
fundamentally in disagreement on the points that you have made as much as in
your approach to the questions.
Having said this, I think that we probably have pushed this bear as far as
it will go and probably should either drop the topic or take it off list.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich®
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 5:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask
Laurie, digital photography in its current implementation is inferior to
AgX systems. And will be much longer. I have nothing against a special film
tuned to scanners. However, the world is dollar/yen/pound/mark driven.
Unless they can make enough profit, they will not introduce it. Technically
it is possible right now, but there is no sufficient number of customers,
ie. profit. You can protest to United nations or the Pope with as much
result. Don't blame me for that, I am just an observer.
At 00:27 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Roman,
>I do not see this as an appropriate answer; actually I think it begs the
>question, except if one assumes that priority is to be given to the
>traditional methods of printing as you seem to want to do. I do not
>criticize you for assigning priority as you have (it is legitimate).
>However, others on this list and elsewhere (I am not necessarily among
them)
>think that the priorities are or should be changing with the priority being
>placed on developing a film dedicated to scanning and not traditional
>printing methods. This places the emphasis on changing the film emulsions
>and properties to fit the demands of scanners and CCD sensors rather than
>photographic paper emulsions and color filter packs. Thus they are calling
>for such things as the elimination of orange masks and the like.
>
>That, practically speaking, this will not happen in the sense of film
>manufacturers introducing films dedicated exclusively to scanning in the
>immediate future is something that a previous post indicates we agree on.
>We also agree on the reasons why this will not happen soon given the nature
>of the existing market make-up. However, this is not to deny that those
who
>are into scanning of films rather than projection printing of films have a
>legitimate right to desire and want films that are more suited and even
>dedicated to scanning as well as to complain about the fact that this is
not
>happening.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich®
>Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:00 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask
>
>
>At 08:14 15/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >What you say is true, however, in terms of digital scanning, what matters
> >is not how color photographic paper emulsion responds to the masking, but
> >how the masking might alter the translation of the scan with a digital
> >scanner using an CCD and software. The scanner might respond quite
> >differently from paper emulsions.
> >
> >Art
>
>change scanner :-{)
>
>
>"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
>in Australia".
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
