Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Digital vs. film cost
From: images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:18:50 -0400
References: <CA4A3527.12141%mark@rabinergroup.com> <28702F42-C73F-4A92-BD28-207F1949F4A5@mac.com> <048FD405-9514-4A94-AA22-82ABBAF3B80D@archiphoto.com>

There is a software program, developed for HDR, that has ability to adjust
mixed lighting in processing.  It's amazing.

http://www.oloneo.com/en/page/photoengine/hdr-relight.html

I was a beta tester for it but have no other connection.  I did buy it.

Tina

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at 
archiphoto.com>wrote:

> And sometimes I had to do a ring around with filtration for indoor
> architectural work with mixed lighting, which multiplied that times 9.
> That's why I also shot colour neg as soon as it started to do a good job.
> Fine tuning of colour and exposure could be done in the lab; shooting time
> decreased to 1/2 or 1/3 and material costs dropped to 5-10%.
>
>
>
> On 2011-07-18, at 4:15 PM, George Lottermoser wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> >> Not only is it not pennies but dollars a frame but part of transparency
> >> shooting is bracketing. Which means your covering yourself whenever you
> can
> >> with lots of exposures of any semi critical subject out in the field
> >> shooting city or land scapes if its worth getting its worth getting
> right
> >> and you learn a lot about your materials in the processs. Also the best
> >> "dupe" is the one make at the time in camera. So you are in effect
> backing
> >> yourself up  holding your figure down.
> >
> > There IT is.
> >
> > Words from a fellow brother
> > who has most certainly shot transparencies
> > for commercial use by
> > advertising agencies, magazines and corporate clients.
> >
> > Each set-up required a minimum of 3 brackets X 2.
> > That's 6 sheets of 8x10 or 4x5 or half a role of 120 (6x6).
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > George Lottermoser
> > george at imagist.com
> > http://www.imagist.com
> > http://www.imagist.com/blog
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
>
> Henning Wulff
> henningw at archiphoto.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>


-- 
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com


Replies: Reply from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)