I used to thing that too, until one of my printers showed me otherwise.
Takes a really good printer to do it right however. I have mentioned one
particular photo on the list in the past, but maybe it is time to tell
the story again.
I had taken a photo in a machine shop. The lighting was sunlight through
an open door, sodium vapor lights overhead, fluorescent lights + an
incandescent spotlight at the lathe, and the metal plasma vapor the
machinist was using to build up the metal on a part. My custom printer
in Ann Arbor saw the machine print and said he could do better (at $25
for an 8x10 in 1982 he had better), so I had him make me a sample print
for my portfolio. His print looked like it had been made under daylight
lighting only. Perfect correction, although I thought the machine print
had a sorcerous look to it that the corrected print was missing. However
he did prove his point that any lighting could be corrected if the
printer was good enough.
I am willing to believe that there never were very many who were that
good if you want to insist, but to say it can't be done is flying in the
face of my own experience. And please also note that Sodium Vapor
lighting has a noncontinuous spectrum and many printers claim you can
not correct it at all. Unfortunately this was all before my father burnt
the house down and those prints were lost with all the rest of my work.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On May 12, 2006, at 11:22 AM, graywolf wrote:
An FLD filter usually helps with normal color negative film.
This would cause problems with the other two light sources -- you're far
better off to shoot a film that handles the crossed lighting.
While it can be corrected to a certain extent, crossed lighting cannot
be fully eliminated in printing.
-Aaron
