Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mar 30, 2010, at 6:49 AM, Vince Passaro wrote: > See (Steve) that's the kind of answer I'm talking about. THAT's what I'm > talking about. I didn't know any of that shit before. Now I do. yes, when Henning answers, people (all of us) listen carefully... but for any opinion to be evaluated, valued, acted upon... the number one important thing is to have your own experience, opinion, and value system... how else do you decide which of the many varied inputs and opinions is the one to value ? Steve > > Vince > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at > archiphoto.com>wrote: > >> At 11:32 PM -0400 3/29/10, Vince Passaro wrote: >> >>> Nah you misunderstood: "that's why I'm asking people's opinion's...." >>> about >>> which one they think is best. The Kodak or the Ilford. Kodak seems to be >>> winning which was my experience. The Ilford was too low contrast in my >>> experience. >>> >>> >> >> >> If you won't develop Tri-X then I take it you don't do enlarging. In that >> case low contrast is your friend, as scanners are much more forgiving of >> low >> contrast than medium or high contrast. >> >> I've used various C41 films; Kodak (various flavours), Ilford XP and XP2 >> and Agfa's. All work fine for scanning. For printing I like the Ilford XP2 >> best if I do it myself. Photofinishers generally like the Kodak films >> better. >> >> >> -- >> >> * Henning J. Wulff >> /|\ Wulff Photography & Design >> /###\ mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com >> |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information