On 29 Aug 2002 at 20:37, Mishka wrote: > Rob, > Both, slides and prints have their advantages. Lattitude is only one half of the > equation. Dynamical range is the second half. No, you cannot "create" either one > in Photoshop. No matter what you do there, you will only lose data.
> You trade lattitude for contrast and vice versa. Unless there is a film > whose lattitude and dynamic range match those of a scanner perfectly, > there's no "better" or "worse" between slide and print films. Just a matter of > preference. E.g. on overcast day, when the lattitude is largely irrelevant, I > think slides will be superior, in terms of amount information they carry from > the original scene to the computer file. For a very high contrast scene, print > film wins. Hi Mishka, Don't get me wrong, I agree with your presentation of the technicalities of slide vs neg however the reality is that many top class landscape photographers who have embraced digital output technologies have moved away from shooting slide films. The digital film scanners are getting so good that very good results can be achieved via scanning negatives. I have quite a few references to photographers who have switched and as you most probably know there are plenty of discussions regarding the issue however not all are up to date. You wonder too sometimes whether the people debating these issues actually have anything but theoretical experience :-) Within the last few months a PDML lister posted a URL about the very topic of a pro who has switched to neg film for scanning which unfortunately generated very little discussion (If anyone has the post that I an referring to archived I'd appreciate a copy of it). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
