Art,
I'm sorry if my reference to someone like Art has upset you; it was not
intended to do so - quite the opposite in fact, as it was really a
compliment to your experience and knowledge. I said it to Brian to contrast
my relative inexperience in serious photography with people like you and
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Make this day on your calendar... Austin and I agree on something! ;-)
Art
OK, maybe MAKING a new day on the calendar is a bit much to ask, it
was supposed to read Mark this day on your calendar... ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
Bob,
Enlargers can have
Oh, so I've become the someone like reference now, eh?
Fine.
If you think my intent here is to mislead or just give uneducated
opinions with no forethought or research, just ignore them. I have
found that the vast majority of people who have followed my advice in
regard to scanner decisions
Hi Austin,
That's absolutely NOT true. You do NOT get softer images with less contrast
from a diffuse (typically called cold) light source.
There has always been a controversy about the merits of
cold-lights. Careful tests have proven that exactly the same tonal
rendition can be
What is somewhat interesting about this is that of all the CCD scanners
on the market (excepting the Leaf, as noted) Nikon is probably best set
up to do a real BW scan. Unlike most which use a triline CCD sensor
with a R, G or B color separating filter for each line, the Nikon
doesn't use color
Actually, the issue isn't as clear cut as opinion or choice.
Diffused light does act more on diminishing the three dimensional stuff,
like dust, dirt and scratches moreso than grain. This is because
diffused light sources bounce the photons around, and so they enter the
film at many angles,
Make this day on your calendar... Austin and I agree on something! ;-)
Art
Austin Franklin wrote:
Bob,
Enlargers can have interchangeable diffuse light sources and
parallel light
sources. The former give soft images with less contrast, while the latter
give sharper images with higher
