On 15 May 2005 at 16:18, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My labs give me exactly what I want. My contention is that it seems just > plain stupid in many cases to take a perfectly good negative, manipulate > the hell out of it, put it through a number of processes that reduce or > alter its qualities, and then fix the alterations caused by digitizing, in > order to make a print that could have been made from the original negative.
So you think that printing a neg to paper using an enlarger doesn't do just that? The fact is that the losses and distortions imparted on an electronic image file in a well calibrated and accommodating editing environment (such as a 16bit wide gamut work-space) are so negligible as to be insignificant in print. Just like the inherent distortion in a good enlarging lens. I don't know why you think the analogue system has inherent superiority, it's just longer established and better understood by the majority, that's all. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
