Colin states:
>> Colour neg is fine as a starting point, it's the print that I can't bear.
and Mafud replies ...
> Now ~that~ I ~can't~ understand.
> What is it about digital printing that makes it qualitatively "better" than a
> chemical print? Is it the "tweaking" ("finishing" in photographic terms) you
> can do with digital? Almost without exception, the large (20 x 30+) digital
> work ~I've~ seen looks more like 4-color ~posters~ than photographs.
I am also at a bit of a loss to understand Colin's dilemma.
I *am* aware that, for enough money! , digital printing can
produce quite nice output. However, if one sends their negs
to a competent high-end chemical processor, the results are
also outstanding, and generally for a fraction of the cost
for digital equivalent results. Perhaps, in Colin's neck of
the woods, there *is* a good digital source and *not* a lab
of comparable ability ??? I assume we are not comparing mini-
labs to high-end digital shops.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
