<shwabo.au@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e9febfc7-8d75-4cbf-8300-25b4ee20cb08@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Actually if look about a dozen posts before this one you will see one of
my
many shots.
> 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?
Seeing as how you are more concerned with my grammar and not your own you
have your own agenda but I deigress........
> 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.
Mmmmm, the problem with that is that for display on screen you probably
want
to have them as sRGB.
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.
And yet here you are posting them for viewing on a monitor, not many will
make changes to their PCs just so they can see your pictures the way you
want them for printing.
>Anyone interested can quickly re-profile their screen
> for adobe.
I expect that will be zero people prepared to do that.
>In fact that should be a default, not an option, for
> anyone interested in photography other than "for the web".
Not sure where you got this info but it is wrong.
> And since most "for the web" work contains the necessary
> profile info, that is not a problem at all. But, I digress.
Apparently you do, yes.....
>> > 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.
What scanner are you using?
>> > 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?
Personally I like to have something interesting in the shot, I am using
RealA at the moment, nice for outdoor shooting but many like Provia, Astia
can be good for really contrasty backgrounds but I don't see that in your
shots..
> 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.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
