Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- -- On Fri, 19 May 2000 20:30:01 Austin Franklin wrote: >> It has nothing to do with the light sourse PER SE, > >Of course it has to do with the light source. The two light sources are >significantly different. They are a different color temperature, wave >length, and intensity. Cold light is also better dispersed, since it is >not from a single source as an incandescent is. > >I have done exactly what you say (I do use D76 1:1 in fact). The cold >light is quite distinguishably better (tonal range is broader and more >defined, and the image itself has better definition). > >Perhaps it is because I only have done it with MF and LF negatives in the >past 10 or more years. I have never really done any 'fine' prints with >35mm. > >I'm certainly not saying your prints with a light bulb aren't great...and >you might think they are better than your experience with cold light >enlargers, but my experience shows that cold lights are head and shoulders >superior than a light bulb. But, that's only my experience... > > What I'm trying to point out is that what it DOES have to do with is the DEVELOPMENT. If you follow the typical recommended development times (e.g., Kodak's) you will NOT get good results with condenser. If, on the other hand, you reduce your times by about 20-30% AND use compensating development (i.e., dilute D-76 or Rodinal 1:100, Acutol, etc.) you will get superior toality, sharpness, and finer grain. > Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com