At 12:47 16/04/02, you wrote: >On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400 Petru Lauric ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > > That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich, > > very dense. >... >and Tony wrote: >...but you *can* produce scans from negs which look as saturated and punchy >as scans from slides. Either way is just R, G & B 0-255. With slide you >discard a lot of image information at the shooting stage, with colour neg >you defer those decisions until working on the scan and have a whole new >degree of freedom not to mention endless second chances when you decide you >got it wrong. > >Slide often forces you to sacrifice either shadow and/or highlight detail. >With neg, you can if you wish retain both, by combining (say) an image >which has good shadows and midtone separation but blown highlights, with >one where you mask off the image apart from the highlights then adjust for >those. This works absurdly well, is not difficult, and enables informal >photography of subjects which would be impossible on tranny without an >array of studio flash fill-in.
Absolutely! to this. But I agree too with what Petru says, in my experience if you find a subject which is low contrast (studio lighting or landscapes at the right time of day are my examples) there is something about a slide that is particularly enticing - it is not only the lack of grain (compared with expanded neg grain) but also a tonal continuity or "velvetiness" or it might be a richness that I have never got from a neg (35mm). I can get my negs to be punchy and saturated and spectacular, but never that smoothness velvetiness or richness that a well exposed slide brings. But that said I use negs almost always, for the reasons Tony said here. Julian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
