Pete D wrote,on my timestamp of 18/04/2008 3:25 PM:
>
> Actually if look about a dozen posts before this one you will see one of
my
> many shots. Not too hard was it.
>
Sorry, missed it. Will look it up.
Not terribly im****tant.
> Seeing as how you are more concerned with my grammar and not your own
you
> have your own agenda but I deigress........
Hey, I just want to understand exactly
what you mean. That is why we use a language
rather than just grunting, no? ;-)
>> 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.
Only if I wanted to see them in a vanilla PC
screen. Like I said: my screen is profiled to
adobergb to match the printer without messing
up with conversions. I advise folks to do same
to see my photos *without* exif colour info.
The ones *with* the exif stuff, it doesn't
matter: pretty much any browser or image
viewer will pick it up and adjust accordingly.
This way I see my photos exactly how my printer
does them and *also* can see "web stuff"
with the colours they meant *if* they have srgb
in their exif profile info.
Just a different baseline, that's all.
>
> 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.
Well, I specifically indicated that was
the way to see them. If they didn't,
like I said "web use" is never my
priority so, tough.
>> 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.
Actually, it isn't.
>
> What scanner are you using?
9000ED with AN glass on top, emulsion down.
Post-processing is a little more complex
though.
>
> 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..
Actually, I think that the most contrasty
scenes one can take is precisely landscapes.
This because you usually have a huge dynamic range,
assuming of course one is not taking photos in a rainy
day like the 4x5 brigade does.
In order to not end up with blocked vegetation in
shadows or the totally blown out or drab baby-blue skis
that seem to be the norm in digital photography, one needs
precisely a less contrasty film. Astia fits the bill
perfectly.
I do agree entirely with Reala, it is a magic film
particularly since about two years ago when Fuji
(finally!) got rid of the "hazy" emulsion side and
went with the polished look. This makes scanning a
much easier task, virtually eliminating the scan-alias
grain of hard light gear.
If only Ilford could do the same to XP2: I really
like it but it scans awful compared to Kodak's
bwc400n...
Provia, older ones, I simply don't like: the blues
are just too muddled, not vibrant at all. The grain
in a hard light film scanner is much more objectionable
than either new velvia or astia or even 400X. I think
it's due to the rough emulsion side again, because I
can't see any probs even with a strong loupe. Be
that as it may, currently my film preferences
are:
1- Reala
(really good job done by Fuji in making this
scanner-friendly!)
very close together:
2- Astia, FujiPro 160N
3- New Velvia and Velvia100
a little bit more distant:
4- Superia 400
5- Provia 400X (very close behind)
But a recent batch of the latest Kodak
****tra had me baffled: it is now obvious
to me that film makers *are* indeed changing
their formulas, with this one a much easier
film to scan than ever before!
Like I said: as much as it might pain the
digital only brigade, film is still evolving
and changing and the latest stuff is way
ahead of anything available even 4 years ago.
Assuming of course one is using a film/scan
workflow, rather than film/darkroom!
Still haven't heard your comments on the
processing of the photos and their composition?
|
