DIYbanter - View Single Post - Bit of a Con Really - Follow-up ...

Bob Larter

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT
Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH
issues very different.
Proof by assertion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could think the same controls
were available to them with a paper/transparency process as with a
computer monitor. I cant think of any possible motivation to prove
whats quite obvious to anyone's that done photographic printing.

Indeed.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------