[filmscanners] Re: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?

["Robert55" <robert55@xs4all.nl>]

Thanks, your explanation seems more logical than mine
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul D. DeRocco <pderocco@ix.netcom.com>
To: <robert55@xs4all.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:52 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?


> > From: Robert55
> >
> > From time to time I find a picture of some very boring pink
> > flowers, which I
> > suppose I photographed because they were interesting blue flowers.
Someone
> > who has more knowledge of flowers than I have (I don't know whether we
are
> > talking about the same flowers) said this was because these flowers
absorb
> > (don't reflect) UV light. If I understand this correctly this is
somewhat
> > like using an UV-filter to eliminate blue haze in high mountains. It
would
> > be interesting to know what effect (if any) a UV-filter has on a digital
> > camera
>
> I've heard that what upsets the photography of some flowers is that they
> reflect a lot of infrared, which is picked up as red by some films or
> sensors. (Bees apparently see this range of color.) That's why the Minolta
> DiMage 7i camera added an IR filter--I guess some DiMage 7 owners
> complained.
>
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body