>>> Point 3 isn't valid either. If lab processing is the way you want to >>> go, you can drop off a memory card at any halfway decent lab and pick >>> up your prints in a couple of hours. The minilab that used to process >>> my color neg film claims they can produce even nicer prints from best >>> quality jpegs. >>> >> This was actually discussed here a few days ago: Isn't it a bit of a >> problem that most labs still only accept jpegs? [ ... ] > A best quality jpeg is fine for making prints, providing it is, in fact, a > good file. > There is not as much latitude to fix exposure and colour failure as there is > with colour negative film, but I don't consider a poorly exposed or white > balanced file to be "best quality". > Negative film gives the lab about a stop of underexposure and about 3 stops > of over exposure before a good print can't be pulled from it, a jpeg has > about half that latitude. > That would be the point I was trying to make, more or less.
The real question is perhaps if a low-cost lab can be expected to do something useful with the film's extra latitude. > Film can be very difficult to get good colour from if the light was the > wrong colour You mean, like indoor lighting with normal film and without the appropriate filters? > without going to custom printing and masking against cross > curves, which means $$$$. > > Photographers have gotten really lazy about exposure over the past couple of > decades. Camera meters have gotten somewhat more accurate, and film has > gotten much more forgiving in this time period. > I'd say that this forgiveness (Uh... Can you call it that?) is an advantage of film over digital. Although giving users a medium that will force them to expose correctly is not all bad... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
