Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Darkroom neophyte knows nothing
Message-ID: <802@peora.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 13:12:49 EST
Article-I.D.: peora.802
Posted: Wed Apr 10 13:12:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 01:59:43 EST
References: <2720013@acf4.UUCP> <9667@brl-tgr.ARPA> <791@peora.UUCP> <377@rduxb.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 35

> One thing to remember, if you want technically correct color, you can only
> get that from slides or if you use negatives, you must include a shot of
> a grey scale and density scale with each roll.

I will agree (somewhat) with your requirement of including "a grey scale and
density scale with each roll".  Not entirely -- since all it will assure you
is that your greys are grey and of proper density -- I'd include a
photograph of some known color scale (e.g., a MacBeth Color Checker, etc.),
and do it under each distinct lighting condition on the roll.  I don't think
that is really necessary, though, for everyday photography.

However, your implication that slides somehow give "technically correct color"
without including some method of checking that the color is correct does not
make sense.  As I mentioned before, you get only one chance to get the color
right on the slide, if you are wanting correct slides; with negatives it
doesn't matter since you always print the negatives and color correct them
in the process.  But slide film reproduces color as incorrectly (under
nonoptimal lighting conditions, etc) as does negative film.

If, on the other hand, you are merely claiming that the film available in
stores for home use does not give "technically correct color", as compared
to something like VPS, I will agree with you.

Ultimately, however, such questions boil down to the typical fidelity-of-
reproduction questions that also plague things like audio equipment.  You
can always get only an approximation to reality; and in photography, you
may not even WANT that.  Thus I don't think it is a very productive topic
to debate extensively; my original point, and the one I stand by, is that
it is in general easier, if you are going to do your own film processing
as well as printing, to do it from negatives; and it costs less.
-- 
Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642