I would defer to Tony. When I said "Different," I didn't mean to imply that
"Different" is either better or worse, because it's not. It is merely "Not
Exactly the Same." I have gotten far better pictures from scanning
underexposed Tri-X than I got in a conventional darkroom. By the same token,
I've gotten terrible scans from film that a Service had no problem with.
Most people learn to deal with these differences readily--but not without
some hard work.
This list is a far better place to learn the information than the magazines,
I've found. We're doing it, and they're only writing about it. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +0100 (BST)
>
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng (youheng@public1.sz.js.cn)
>wrote:
>
> > Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical
> > Darkroom's?
>
>I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. It's just
>different, and different enough to be unable to say which is objectively
>better since what is at stake is your personal preference. All I would say
>is : be prepared for a long and steep learning curve, comparable with
>achieving the best from the chemical darkroom. Perfection by either route
>takes time and effort.
>
>Regards
>
>Tony Sleep
> - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
>info & comparisons
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
