Re: Opinion From A Novice Part 2

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Tottle wrote, and Dr. T. replied:

>>Most would agree stereo slides are superior. 

>You'd be surprised... :-)  In my eyes they are.  Others (lots of them!)
>don't see it that way... (again, plenty of discussion on slides vs. prints
>and similar issues in past digests) Of course, the issue of format is
>more complicated than prints vs. slides, with different viewing options 
>possible within the same medium (for example, free-viewing vs. using a 
>viewer vs. View-Magic, etc., for prints...)

I recently did some print work using Kodak Royal Gold (ISO 25), printed
on Royal Gold paper.  These are the first prints I've done where the
color saturation and sharpness are *nearly* the equal of slide film
like Velvia.  Of course being ISO 25, this film is limited in its
applications to primarily bright sun or controlled articifial lighting
(studio photofloods, etc.).

Even though I normally favor slides, I find viewing these Q-Vu-mounted
prints superior to slides because they can be freeviewed (nothing between
me and them except air).  But of course, not everyone can freeview (though
many who currently can't could be taught), so this is still not the
"universal" viewing system by any means.

The point being, don't be so quick to dismiss prints as necessarily
inferior to slides!  As Dr. T. rightly points out, there are many
different viewing options for both media, with some being clearly
superior to others (e.g. View-Magic is clearly superior to a cheap
plastic lorgnette).  35mm slides don't lend themselves well to free-
viewing, at least not if you want to see all the fine detail.

	-Greg W.



------------------------------