Re: OH GOD JAN DON:T SAY ANYTHING :-D

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Portra was renamed and redesigned to fill a gap in the Koo-duck lineup and they fiddled with the ISO ratings so they could hopefully fill all the gaps. They had to compete with that Japanese film which was killing them in sales. If you got suckered into using that rubbish, that�s on you. Yeah, flat! That says is all. Why would anybody be doing retouching on these negs in the 21st century? Ever imagine that?


On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:40 PM, RsLittle wrote:

Portra isnt that bad I shoot portra 160 at 125 and its very nice flat because its designed for scanning and retouching.


From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.



-------- Original message --------
From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/13/2013 6:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: OH GOD JAN DON:T SAY ANYTHING :-D



It�s scanned on a Kodak/Creo/Scietex and run through their spotting and dust elimination software. It�s still better than digital unless of course you like flat tones and soft details. Good thing they didn�t pick a really good film, as Portra 160 is crap. NOt that I am God, but I haven�t shot a roll of it in a decade and many of my peers hate it too.


On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Randy Little wrote:



Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post

.







Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post

.






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux