Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tim A wrote: >At the risk of turning into a LF list!, check out this review of NPS. > >I have used the procedure Henning suggests - works well - many clients seem >happy with LF prints from the negs, without bothering with transparencies - >even for publication. I think there may be more of the Fuji four layer films >available now (does Reala have this in 35mm?): Yes, Reala (the old one) had it first in all formats, now more Fuji films have it. They are much more forgiving of nasty colour casts than any transparency film. The main thing is to either do the Vericolor chromes yourself, or have someone very good do it for you. I'm lucky to have the latter. You can't get the same overall colour response as with daylight from any other light source; each light source will produce its own rendition. With tungsten or halogen lights it's possible to get close with filtration, but there are still differences. With discontinuous spectra, like flourescents, it's impossible to filter for similar response because no filter is an exact inverse of the spectral differences between daylight and any given flourescent tube. So called 'higher quality' flouresecnts have coatings on the insides of the tubes which make them less efficient, but spread the spectra through secondary emissions and internal filtration. Some gas emission lights such as low pressure Sodium Vapour are impossible to fix as there is virtually no energy in large expanses of the spectra. In my photography, it's usually OK to photograph with the existing lights as those are the lights that usually illuminate the rooms, so the spectral responses are for the most part 'normal' for that room. The Fuji negative material just allows me to correct for the human perceptual spectral accomodation. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com