Your lab guy doesn't like chrome because
it is harder. It takes a better and more expensive scanner to capture
the range of a chrome.
More better and more expensive than his Tango drum scanner? Name one.
It might even be necessary to do a shadow mask
in Photoshop to get an accurate representation of the chrome in a
print.
In PS 6 on mac or pc on his cross platform network like they do every day?
With a negative he has no idea what the picture is supposed to
look like and he can get a decent print even it doesn't look much
like what the photographer intended.
A good photographer has a REAL good idea what a photo is supposed to look
like, whether he took it or not.
As for his judgment that the commercial photography world is too
timid to switch to obtain "better" results just seems silly to me.
Think about it. A client with lots of money hires a super, high rep
photographer who has established his/her reputation by controlling
the process as much as possible to give his pictures the look that
his clients pay for. Usually that is a chrome process because he can
then point to the chrome and say this is the picture I took.
Have you ever worked with account execs? Damn few know anything about
photography, printing, or color theory. They live in fear of the client, who
knows little enough as well. the high rep photographer is long out of the
loop, at this point.
The hard fact is, with the exception of ProviaF (and don't get me started on
the folly of pushing 100 rather than using 400), there has been little R&D
in chromes as compared to negative film.
And by the way, he has several national accounts. I assure you, you have
seen his photos and his lab's work, anywhere in the US
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|