About Us

The Natural Philosopher[_2_]

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.

Color transparencies which are used in pro film applications say your
are a liar.

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode