Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Given the limited amount of post-processing I do, the characteristics of the film are preserved in the images I post, I think. I shot some images on Delta 100 with tripod, but later I got tired lugging the tripod around and switched to Tri-X. Still later I put the red filter on and the tripod came out again. That was on Texel. The ones of the windmill etc. are all handheld, no filter. The lab I use uses XTOL, which happens to be what I used when I did my own developing, so that's another good thing. Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog YNWA On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:09 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > Nowadays with the control we get in scanning I wonder how much is left > over > in a film/ developer/ dilution choice. How much "look" is left over from > that choice that we see on your monitors 1000 pixels across? As I think in > scanning and post balancing we can make anything balance out to look like > anything with out even the use of that third party software where we can > just hit that "tri ix in Rodinal 1:100" button and it would not matter > that > it was shot in Neopan Across 100 in Xtol 1:3. > > I think the look these shots from the Netherlands have are not so much > based > on their film and soup choice. Unless we were looking at darkroom prints in > person. > And I'm sure they'd look just fine. > > I don't think once we scan them and turn them into a screen sized jpeg we > know what we are looking at in that sense. Which is one reason I have > trouble going out and buying a brick of film. > > Mark William Rabiner >