On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:52:36 +, Mishka wrote:
>what do you guys think about it? is it better/different than shooting
>color and then just turning to BW in photoshop? i never tried it and
>really curious how is it different (if at all) from regular BW film
Well, it *is* different. It looks lik
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Mishka wrote:
> what do you guys think about it? is it better/different than shooting
> color and then just turning to BW in photoshop? i never tried it and
> really curious how is it different (if at all) from regular BW film
I used it for a shortwhile, and was pleased with
Surprisingly good stuff and it is different than turning the color into B&W in
Photoshop.
B&W in photoshop is merely grayscale but having the B&W Color Process Film offers, at
least to me, more subtlety when it comes to the image.
My fave currently (while expensive) is the Kodak Portra 400 B
good
print out of it in a dark room, just always looks crap.
Regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:57 AM
Subject: RE: C41 BW film (was Re: Color is So Much Easier)
> Surprisingly good
the only reason I shoot B&W film is when I want to engage in the mental
discipline of seeng in B&W. It really is a different trip - looking for
patterns and texture etc. But if I'm shooting color and see a shot that
will look best in B&W, I take it and convert the image digitally.
Having dev
How so? I've scanned maybe 200 B&W images using a Nikon Coolscan
something-or-other. The process was simple, and the results quite good,
even to my critical eye. George, the fellow whose scanner was used,
just set the scanner once, and from then on everything was automatic.
Mark Cassino wrote:
Hi Mark,
OK, then what we have here is probably a difference in the way the
scanners work. I don't know all the technical jargon, but the Nikon
Coolscan 4000 ED (4000dpi, etc) does a great job w/traditional B&W. I
know that the Minolta uses a different light source than the Nikon, and,
of cours
Hi Mark ...
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Mark Cassino wrote:
> Yow - I just ran some tests and the grain reduction on Vuescan is indeed
> clobbering the detail. I was scanning for web display and resampling the
> images down to ~640 x 480 - at which point they look OK - but I cou
8 matches
Mail list logo
