hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: cameras..

  • Subject: Re: [iris-talk] cameras..
  • From: "Colleen Modra" <irises@senet.com.au>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 06:48:27 +1000

I've found that Fuji Provia is the most accurate slide film. I'm trying some
Kodak Max for print film accuracy in blues. I hace a ArtixScan 4000dpi
slide/negative scanner which is excellent but probably a bit expensive for
hobby use. I can get full size A4 prints that look like photos cropped from
about haf the area of a slide

Colleen Modra
Impressive Irises
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandra Barss <barsssa@mb.sympatico.ca>
To: <iris-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-talk] cameras..


> I have been using a Pentax 35mm film camera and I would like to know
> what you would consider a good film.
>
> I have tried the "scanning in at the photo lab route", but the colors
> are all distorted.  I also get a set of prints at the same time and
> those are the pictures I end up posting 95% of the time (by scanning the
> print).  I can see the difference in the clarity of the photos posted
> from digitals (although I would probably disagree that all digitals
> render color better than standard cameras).
>
> What could be happening to the colors when I get the lab to scan the
> film in.   I figured the lab was just doing an excellent job of color
> correcting.
>
> Sandra
> SE Manitoba
>
> "R.J. Baynum" wrote:
>
> > I  understand the benefits of digital, however , unless you pay a lot
> > more for a
> > camera, that sells in the 5 to 8 or even 10 thousand range you will
> > not get better
> > photos then with standard film. You should use good film, and then
> > have it scanned
> > at the lab, then go over it in photo shop.. You should stick to the
> > film instead
> > of taking the easy way out. Learn about photography first, and get a
> > really good
> > Camera with good glass.. I prefer Cannon my self. I also like
> > Hasselblad.
> > I and my wife are professional photographers,.. among other things
> > our web site.. http://www.reflectionstudio.com
> >
> > R.J.
> > Huntsville AL.
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 






 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index