Re: w.j.markerink's lame opinions about print options

[Simon Nathan <simonwide@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i am sure glad that i didn't get into middle of
this kodak moment. of course color neg has greater exposure range. anyone 
need information how to demonstrate this knowledge to your self locally.
e mail me behind my rock near the shoprite supermarket in east orange new
jersey. simon nathan

Steve Shapiro wrote:

The range of light and color is one and a half stops on reversal film; and
the range with negative film is five stops.

Neither pernicious nor bullshit.  Go figure, photographers.

SS
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Atherton <gdm12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: w.j.markerink's lame opinions about print options

evphoto@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> re: Getting prints from slides *is* getting easier and better every
> year, but only through the digital route,...
>
> to which I reply: what pernicious bullshit. Getting prints from
> transparencies is even more straightforward than from color negatives
because
> it is easier to get the color matched. Yous hould know better.

In my experience getting decent prints from colour trans is almost
impossible.
Over the years my clients take trannies that I've shot and surreptitiously
get
some reversal prints made.  The contrast is *always* way over the top.  Last
week
I had a job from an ad agency that wanted some 40" x 30" prints of campaign
stuff
to decorate their reception walls, this was only going to be a 1 off print
job.
So I shot it on colour neg stock,  but I also shot a couple of sheets of
trannie
as a reference to my printer.  The results ( though I say it myself ) were
pretty
good.  I think one of the the problem is that trannies have a higher
perceived
quality,  I guess negatives don't look so sexy on a light box!
Bob Atherton