Hi Todd, > Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same neg > printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've done is > taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed it > with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH. > Likewise if they > print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a coldlight > it will look flat.
Well, it has been well proven that you can get the same density range from the same negative with a cold light or a point light source, using appropriate exposure time, aperture and grade of paper (or filter), so that is a non-issue. The other issues are the "Callier effect", sharpness, dust, scratches and tonality (dynamic range). > the > Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be > compensated for as needed. What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust? How do you compensate for that? > Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an issue or not ;-) > Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong. Understood. Me too. Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body