7 jan 2007 kl. 23.28 skrev Kostas Papakotas:
Now, really...;-) That´s a little work, but rather easy to fit into a workflow once one starts. And just remember how it used to be: You selected a slide film, Kodak, Fuji, or Agfa, and that was it. Stay with the colours you got, or pay through your nose for a professional, adjusted dupe. Shoot in the wrong light, and you´ve had it. With colour neg, pay for drugstore prints and try to look happy, otherwise learn to print, spend half an hour and lots of test strips for each shot to find a filter pack that came within the ballpark. Now: just shoot raw, get it right on your (calibrated) monitor, then just convert a copy for the purpose at hand, and it will be pretty close unless someone goofs up. I shot a wedding last summer (my son was reckless enough to ask me instead of getting a pro...), using raw on my then new D200, and printing the result on my Epson 2100 (after due selection and editing). Everyone was happy (or at least said so). Then, the happy couple wanted lots and lots of small thank-you cards made by a (cheap but good) Fuji Frontier lab 600 km away (Frontier labs deliver photographic prints, not inkjets, so it is a totally different chemistry). I went to the lab´s web site and downloaded their printer profile, downsampled, converted, and tagged the selcted image, and uploaded it to them. When my card arrived (yes, I did get one, too...), I was relieved it looked quite good. Then I put it next to one of my own inkjet prints, and was quite speechless (seldom happens...). The match was almost perfect, despite the totally different materials, and the absence of any reference print for that lab to use. Try that with negative colour film.... Per Per Öfverbeck "In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?" |
