Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] 35/70-3.6 vs 35/2 vs 28/48-4 LONG

Subject: [OM] 35/70-3.6 vs 35/2 vs 28/48-4 LONG
From: "Andy Gilbert" <gilbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 20:48:39 +0100
Dave Dougherty Wrote
<snip>
The digital processor allows me to hope that I have found a way to have my
efforts printed to reflect the capabilities of the OM system and my limited
photographic abilities.  In the past I have lamented loud and long that I
couldn't get it done.

If you shoot color negative, seek out a digital lab.  I think you will be
impressed.

Finally, the shots today are gorgeous!  I don't have a way to scan them to
put them up for review.  I am going to shoot some Portra 160VC at the
gardern and have it scanned to CD as well as printed.  I hope to get my Tope
10 entry from that effort.

I don't usually go on this long, but I thought the concept might inspire
some of you to revisit color negative films.

Personally I find negative film easier to scan & print, with my N*k*n film
scanner. See http://www.pbase.com/image/2037479 and
http://www.pbase.com/image/2037666, both were shot on standard Kodak Gold
200, and have only been cropped and slightly tweaked in photoshop.  I'm
making the effort to shoot slide film as well, however, which makes it is
easier to see what you've got.

Andy Gilbert
Exeter
Devon
England


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz