Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #317 - 3 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #317 - 3 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #317 - 3 msgs
- From: "Joseph A. Castay" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:31:55 -0400
On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 01:06 AM, colorsync-users-
email@hidden wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this summary, but it seems conclusions were
being drawn from the erroneous "belief" stated above and that this
summary is a non sequitur.
Density Ranges were stated "AT LEAST". That means there can be a larger
number. How much more? Well, I was considering real world conditions
which sometimes are not as scientific as the paper spec. I assume most
professional photographers and photographic lab people know the
capabilities of the particular films on spec and in real world
conditions. The photographer who made the original post knows his films.
Film is subject to temperature of lights and processing (temp and time
and replenishment rates), Film processed in the morning might be
different then film processed in the afternoon. It's not supposed to
be - by spec.
I haven't been able to get better color from a negative film / scanner
than a scan back.
"Stops" do not equate to better color.
What's erroneous and non sequitur? Is 50 cents less your lack of
understanding of real world conditions. I left the door wide open and
you thought you closed it with a spec sheet. Get real sports fan.
My math> after a busy day and at 3am what the heck was I doing.
I was trying to relate how much more dense in 10th is from 0 to 1.0. Not
in stops. If my math is wrong. Tell me and show me the math. I don't
mind being corrected.
Joseph
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.