On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:53:37 +1200 Sam Urdank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:14:40 -0800
>From: Sam Urdank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: light and film question [v04.n326/11]
>Message: 11
>
>Wes:
>
>You are talking about the latitude of the film, and the ability to yield
>an exceptable print from an overexposed neg., not the actual
>characteristics of the film and it's print. In addition, grain is
>something that becomes more noticeable with overexposure.
Sorry. Grain is more pronounced with underexposure, as fewer grains have been
able to react to the little light reaching the film (remember, what we see as
grain on a print is actually the spaces between the grain on a negative). This
incomplete development of grains means that smmoth tones are not achieved, and
so we get grainy pictures.
It also seems to me that the latitude of the film is the same as the
characteristics of a film. And the ability of a neg to yield an acceptable
print is what the original post was concerned with, so what's the problem?
