Again, how "three dimensional" a print looks is entirely the result
of how it is rendered. It makes absolutely no difference whether the
capture and rendering process was film or digital.
Godfrey
On Mar 22, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Ken didn't mean "flat" as in lacking contrast. He meant that he
finds that analog prints have more of a three dimensional look. I
don't see that, but he may well have a more discriminating eye.
On Mar 22, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I've got to agree. When I have flat images, it's because I didn't
post processing them properly. You should work on those skills,
rather than relying on the lab to do that for you by using film.
GD> I'm sorry, Ken, but this is ridiculous.
GD> If you are printing images that look flat, they are not rendered
GD> correctly.
GD> Period.
... But when printed, I cannot help noticing that the digital
images are always
flat (not always but many times). ...
