I completely agree with you as to digital. Film transparencies as you know, are a whole different ball game. That said, they have to be scanned and at that point you\'re back in the digital realm. However, every so often I will shot a transparency that needs no input whatsoever from me or the scanner for that matter, not the raw scan of course but the scanner embellishments set to \"none\". The image below is an example first the film sheet on the light table, then the finished image. The only thing added was the mandatory magenta filtering for the long exposure as called by Fuji in the Velvia specs. I do that in post.
Best,
Jose
BTW, I work with film scans full time for clients (6x17, 4x5, 8x10...) and they too need a lot of correction work. But surely not like a negative or a RAW FILE.
kurt765 wrote:
I honestly don\'t know of anyone who really argues that things should be \"straight out of the camera\" with no manipulation.
My quote is a side note to correct/clarify a very popular confusion/misconception that Dan mentions (about raw files not manipulated). I see this \"I barely manipulated this image\" or the \"straight out of the can\" sort of sometimes haughty/purist attitude on the forums quite often. I agree with the disclosure point.
Feb 06, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Previous versions of Mark Metternich's message #10316203 « Peter Lik Comedy image »
