From: "James B. Davis" > The best for me though, is it frees me up while shooting. I don't have > to tweak the camera to get a decent image. The fact is, I only have to > tweak exposure and focus in camera. not having to set a colour balance is a major plus, however there's not much other than focus or exposure one really needs to adjust (tweak) in any given camera is there? > Try adjusting the 'levels' of a JPG after you get it back home in PS. > Check histogram... jpegs are analogous to positive films while RAWS far more resemble negatives and as such accurate exposure is needed for jpegs than RAWS that's for sure. > You reminded me though, when is the public going to get a 16 bit Fuji > Frontier? A machine that is color space aware? A machine that can do > wider paper? A machine with finer resolution? Dursts Lambda goes to 400 ppi though 300 ppi is pretty impressive, and the Frontier apparently outputs at up to 24 bit. 256 shades of any given colour is pretty deep! > Geez, wish I had a Pro lab nearby. I really want to see something with > 16 bit fine res printing on R4 paper. Glossy. Adobe Colour Space. the Adobe colour space is a CMYK parameter, Frontiers output RGB but anyway, until they manufacture some sort of light emitting luminescent papers then we're stuck with the simple fact that reflected light can't convey the same colour space as transmitted light, and as such no print will ever exhibit the colour range of sRGB let alone Adobe's colour space. This is no different than it was before with film. B&W neg had massive latitude and unless you produced a dead flat print contrast wise then the full range of what the film captured could never translate onto paper. to get the correct tonal range AND gamma was and remains impossible on paper. Negative film was closer, but still massively more data was available than could translate to print and even slide film with a high contrast and narrow latitude was disappointing regarding what was lost when printed. Gloss of course has a deeper 'colour space' than semi gloss, and that more than flat papers, but the elusive 'full range' will remain a dream while we're outputting to print. > So does anyone know what's brewing in the minilab equipment field > these days? it looks to be static for some time to come, at least thats what the Agfa and Fuji guys told me when we went to buy a lab. karl
