RE: dig negs (Burkholder)
> Just for the record: My results were pretty consistent, reliable and > beatiful before reading Mark's book also. I mean you can get quite > consistent, reliable and beatiful results without PDN too - I don't quite > understand why PDN is presented as an absolute must for this purpose? I think a lot of people misunderstood me hear. I should have been more clear. PDN isn't an absolute must for digital negatives, but for my personal workflow, it's much more reliable than Dan's. In the long run, it saves me time in that I don't have to do any curve tweaking (which equates to fewer test prints). It's more WYSIWYG (for me, at least) than Dan's, which I prefer. > I agree with Mark; about getting/reading both books to learn as much as > possible... Me too. :) I didn't truely understand the inner workings of PDN until I got my hands on Dan's book. Camden Hardy camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net http://www.hardyphotography.net
|