Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]no doubt about it but i have hit rock bottom with a Canon MarkIV and only six lenses ;) On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Chris Saganich <csaganich op gmail.com> wrote: > After the divorce, when all you have is the M9 and 0.95, you will still be > smiling. > > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 3:12 PM, simon jessurun <simon.apekop op > gmail.com>wrote: > >> thx i liked tmax and across but didnt come close to what i could do >> with techpan.Only tried a few rolls but result amazed me . Even on my >> consumer scanner no detectable grain at A0 print sizes . >> Spur and copex i had forgotten about those . >> thank you very much for your comments >> simon >> almaty \rkz >> >> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Tim Gray <tgray op 125px.com> wrote: >> > On Apr 02, 2012 at 01:42 AM +0930, Marty Deveney wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Tim Gray <tgray op 125px.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> What always confuses me is that T-MAX 100 wasn't mentioned. ?Also a >> good >> >>> film. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't mention it because it also has (to me) a somewhat odd spectral >> >> response: >> > >> > >> > Understood. ?The T-Max films do have a different spectral sensitivity, >> but >> > in my experience, most films differ in this respect. ?Actually, Techpan >> had >> > extended red response, so if that's important to the original poster, >> > I'm >> > not sure any of these is a good match. >> > >> > I wasn't really only pointing the finger at you. ?More of a statement >> about >> > these kinds of discussions online. ?T-Max 100 always seems to be left >> out. >> > >> > I saw a comparison between these four films on rangefinderforum a couple >> > months ago. ?Unfortunately, the scans are no longer on line. ?The films >> > weren't identified at first and people guessed which picture was which >> film. >> > ?It was interesting to see what people guessed - they placed their >> favorite >> > films with the pictures they liked the most. ?One of the scans looked >> > noticeably worse than the others (could have been the development, the >> film, >> > or the scanning) and that was the one that several people said was >> > T-Max. >> > ?The one that many people liked the most was the actual T-Max shot >> > though >> > most people thought it was something else. ?Once the results were >> revealed, >> > several people were shocked to find out how grainy the PanF+ actually >> was. >> > >> > Of course, it was more of a test of those four films, developed in the >> > manner they were developed, and scanned the way they were scanned. ?I'm >> sure >> > the one film that looked bad could have looked much better had it been >> > developed differently. ?What I thought was interesting is that the test >> > seemed to highlight a bias against T-Max films by many. >> > >> > Obviously, if you don't like T-Max 100, you are free to not like it. >> ?All of >> > these four films are probably different enough from Techpan in various >> ways >> > that I'd rather just mention all four and try not to let my biases enter >> in. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Chris Saganich > www.imagebrooklyn.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information