On Apr 18, 5:07 am, "Pete D" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > All you need to do is a quick search here and other places to see some
of
> > my photos
Actually, I never seen them anywhere. But that is besides this point.
Thank you for a reply that sounds a bit less trollish than usual.
That is definitely an improvement.
> > but that is besides the point, you have posted a number of
> > pictures, I assume you are asking for comment, I am asking what you
want
> > to achieve?
So why not ask just that, instead of commenting "nothing to amazing"
which is not proper English to start with?
What I want to achieve? OK: read on, if you are really interested.
> > For some reason you have chosen to use them profiled in a
> > particular way and I would like to know more about what you want here?
I profile them with adobergb1998 because that is how I get
best results out of my printer. And since I don't particularly
care about showing photos "for the web", I don't bother
re-profiling them to srgb or any of the other web-oriented
profiles. Anyone interested can quickly re-profile their screen
for adobe. In fact that should be a default, not an option, for
anyone interested in photography other than "for the web".
And since most "for the web" work contains the necessary
profile info, that is not a problem at all. But, I digress.
> > The shots did not appear to be well composed or well processed, do you
> > want to print them at a large size for posters? Are these just for
web?
Like I said: definitely "not just for web". As for the composition
or processing, I'd appreciate your input in more detail on both
subjects.
Really, I would. But note that I did not provide details of the
processing. And there is a bit to it.
> > I await your answer.
You got it. Read on, like I said.
>
> Oh yes, I would highly recommend against using the Astia100 film, great
for
> ****trait shooting but not for what you have shown here.
Disagree. It might be what you read in some circles
but as I proved more than once, nowadays astia - and other films -
are
as good as anything for most purposes, particularly if correctly
post-processed. A lot of the film info floating around in the net
dates
from eons ago, from folks who never got too involved with digitizing
film to start with and never bothered to keep actual or try different
techniques. IOW: pure urban myth.
I like to challenge that. And that is what I "want to achieve".
Without further ado, then: can you elaborate on how another film
would
create "better" results, and define "better" to start with? And
on what do you find incorrect with the composition and processing?
Preferably with concrete actual *film* examples, rather than more
myth or over-processed or stitched digital images?
Sorry if it sounds confrontational: it isn't. I truly appreciate
critique.
But the real kind. Not just typical usenet " statements of fact" or
blow-hard claims.
|
