HENRY - insects etc see certain things in UV or infrared which we can't see; similarly
there are certain hues we can see that one film or another can't. I've run into mineral
colors in the desert and fluorescent algae out along the coast that no film can seem
to record (although the old style side-by-side grainy Agfachrome sometimes worked, or
a tricolor b&w white system might work). If trannie films are relatively limited in scale,
color negs films have distinct limitations in hue gamut. If you're able to reproduce those missing colors in PS then you are inventing them and not duplicating the results
of the film per se. Maybe dithering like heck. More likely, you're just used to a particular film and have learned to see the world the way it does, which is not realistic. Doesn't mean the results aren't potentially pleasing, but it's a myth that any
kind of film begins to capture light or color as we really see it. And it's all really a game of illusionism, making our media look convincing when its actually artificial. I've
spent my whole adult life trying to get certain rare hues to reproduce in print, and I don't think I'll ever succeed. Neg films just make it harder; and PS is limited by the
output media. Inkjet certainly has its gamut limitations; and Lightjet etc is just std
C paper. My last resort is dye transfer, which is not perfect either, but a more
accurate gamut than anything else I'm aware of. It's a bit of a revelation when these
things are put side by side.
Bookmarks