Hidden costs in medium format?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:05:01 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Elemental wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:27:00 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Personally I
see no advantage for shooting slide film if the end product is a print
except to prove you can do it some other way.

I do it to show the lab the correct colors. They will print anything
they want otherwise. It is that simple.

Then you need to find a new lab.

I've run out of labs. Next.

In article , Elemental
wrote:


I've run out of labs. Next.

It seems more likely that you have run out of labs who will do it cheap enough.

What the human eye see as color is hugely influenced by brightness. You
know that transparencies have a greater viewed lattitude than a print can
reproduce, right? It's simply not possible. But if you can afford it, you
might spend what is neccessary to have a pro print a dye transfer, with
masks - providing your transparencies are exposed to within 1/4 of stop
dead-on.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:45:08 +0000, CorrPro96 wrote:

I'm on the side of film and scanning to digital.
The important factor in digital quality is information. Image quality and color
depth is still a function of image information available. Roll film trannies or
negs provide huge amounts of digital information to work with. The 6x4.5 and
larger roll film originals are fantastic sources for digital work.

Rich

Me too, at least for color. I print wet for b/w, but scan my 6x7
slides/chromes for printing by computer. I shoot transparencies so I can
judge their quality directly, and scan them because I have a b/w darkroom.
But then I pay only US$5 for 9 MB scan and $10 for a 25 MB file size.
The 11x14 prints look good to me :-)

Bill