[Leica] Film Lab

lluisripollphotography lluisripollphotography at gmail.com
Sun Jun 4 14:18:27 PDT 2017 

Exactly my friend!

VAMOS!

Cheers
Lluis



> El 4 juny 2017, a les 22:56, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> va escriure:
> 
> Hi Lluis. Are you comparing a wet print from BW negative with an inkjet
> print made from a scan of the negative?
> If this is the case then the scanner is the weakest part
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 at 5:39 am, Tina Manley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I had a show at the Winthrop University gallery of 3' x 2' prints of Syrian
>> children's faces.  Half were from film, half were digital.  I much, much
>> preferred the prints from the digital files.  The grain of the film,
>> enlarged that much, seems to affect the sharpness.  The digital prints
>> could probably have been twice as large and still looked much sharper with
>> more details in the shadows and highlights than the prints from film.
>> 
>> I will never go back to film.
>> 
>> But that's just me.
>> 
>> Tina
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:23 PM, lluisripollphotography <
>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Gerry, Jayanand and other friends
>>> 
>>> What I can say is obvious, film and digital technologies are different,
>>> they work in different ways and maybe it is a mistake compare them. What
>> I
>>> can say and afirm is that if you have a negative from film, you print it
>>> and you also you enlarge it in the darkroom the results are much better
>>> from the darkroom procedure, for example, one of the prints I’ve do on my
>>> EPSON SC-P600 on Canson Platine Fiber Rag size A3 and the same enlarged
>> on
>>> Ilford Baryta Multigrade, same size, the resukts are much, much, much
>>> better from the chemical process, the digital printing offers an
>>> approximate view with less gradation, les definition and deepness on the
>>> blacks and on the highlights, on this picture there is sand and very
>> shiny
>>> sea waves, in the inkjet print the sand appears as many small pints and
>> the
>>> highlights without information, on the wet copy you see a rich extended
>>> zones of grey on the sand and information on the highlights. If you take
>>> the focusing magnifier used n the darkroom and lou look at the  picture
>>> information from digital, you see big drops of ink, if you look at the
>> wet
>>> copy you see fine points of grain. The printers still “don’t know print
>> in
>>> a fine gradation, they know only input points (drops if ink)”. If we ONLY
>>> look at the picture on the monitor the differences are less evident, the
>>> monitirs are retroíluminated and they give us a better suggestion of the
>>> image, if you consider as I do, that the final picture is the picture,
>> I’m
>>> sorry to be so “brave” as Gerry says but the wet copy is the winner.
>>> 
>>> A different think is if you have shot something on digital, in my opinion
>>> on this case you are already to work with the digital values, they can
>>> differ from film values. In my recent experience in the darkroom with a
>>> friend who know very well the B&W negative values, he has demonstrate me
>>> measuring the negatives zones with a densitomer that separation and
>>> information between the different zones, particularly on the extreme
>> zones
>>> 0, 1 and 9 and 10 is more rich with film. I’ve do Digital Negatives, an
>>> interesting technique to get chemical prints from digital files, not
>> easy,
>>> and at least in my experience the final quality is not as good as a copy
>>> from a real negative, I think because the original amount of information
>> is
>>> not the same, when you make a Digtal Negative you print it, and I have
>>> already said which are the inconvenients of a printer procedure compared
>>> with a chemical one.
>>> 
>>> Beside this there are many possible interpretations as well as compromise
>>> and in many cases digital could be enough, but what I’ve realized is that
>>> if I have a nice picture to print, I prefer have it from film and do it
>> on
>>> the darkroom than in inkjet printing.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Lluis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> El 4 juny 2017, a les 9:30, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>
>> va
>>> escriure:
>>>> 
>>>> Dan,
>>>> Oh, I am sure of that!
>>>> 
>>>> I feel that digital output is still better than darkroom output,
>> though,
>>>> even for B&W. IMHO, there is simply no comparison, in the complete
>>>> workflow, from capture to print. As I said, others may have different
>>>> opinions and I respect that - I know Lluis does, and we have discussed
>>> this
>>>> many, many times privately, and in the end we just amicably agree to
>>>> disagree, and go on with what suits us individually! However, I find
>> the
>>>> exchange of views very useful, leading to invaluable insights.
>>>> 
>>>> Cameras are tools for me, and digital cameras, Fuji & Nikon, one for
>>> street
>>>> and one for wildlife, are my tools of choice at this point of time. The
>>>> Fuji GFX50S is tempting, and exerting a siren's song,  but I cannot see
>>> how
>>>> I have any use for it that makes it superior to my existing gear, for
>> my
>>>> type of photography, and the sizes I print at present. A printer that
>>>> accepts 24" wide paper, instead of 17" that my Epson 3885 uses might
>> be a
>>>> better choice right now!
>>>> 
>>>> I have a fair amount of film camera equipment gathering dust on my
>>> shelves
>>>> and in the bank locker, more, I am sure, than most of the most
>> committed
>>>> film shooters around - Leica IIIF and IIIG, Nikon F Apollo. F2AS,
>>>> F3Titanium, F4, F100, Canon and Nikon Rangefinders, Rollei TLRs, Mamiya
>>>> 645E - except for the Leicas, all of them were originally bought by my
>>>> family - uncles, aunts, father, myself - and finally found their way to
>>> me.
>>>> Most of these are with me because I did not have the wit (or the heart)
>>> to
>>>> sell them in time. This after selling most of my Leica film equipment
>> in
>>>> London a few years ago (M3, M2, R6.2 and 10 lenses)!
>>>> 
>>>> Pens and watches, on the other hand, are hobbies, passions which make
>>> them
>>>> an emotional issue, while cameras are just a utilitarian one! I am
>>>> particularly fond of JLR and IWC in watches, and Pelikan as well as the
>>>> Japanese trio, Namiki/Pilot, Sailor and Platinum as far as pens are
>>>> concerned, and primarily these are what I use.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jayanand
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Dan Khong <dankhong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jayanand
>>>>> 
>>>>> You might be more analog oriented than you think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I actually like collecting and using old fully mechanical watches and
>>> apart
>>>>> from the antique look, almost all that I have are accurate and they
>> run
>>>>> like clockwork. I also write with fountain pens in my work and cheap
>>> ones
>>>>> perform really well. So it looks that we have much in common.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan K.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <
>>> jayanand at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I disagree, I think film is nowhere as good as digital, but to each
>> his
>>>>>> own.....:-) (Hey - I use mechanical watches and fountain pens!!!)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Jayanand
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:18 AM, lluisripollphotography <
>>>>>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gerry, Dan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I’m agree of course, but film is not only nostalgia, it is better
>>>>> quality
>>>>>>> than pixels technologies…
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Lluis
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> El 3 juny 2017, a les 23:23, Dan Khong <dankhong at gmail.com> va
>>>>>> escriure:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lluis
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Film and darkroom is far from dead. Ilford is revived as
>>>>> Harman-Ilford.
>>>>>>>> Kodak still makes films both for still photography and
>>>>> cinematographic
>>>>>>>> industry. Seems Star Wars and latest Bond movie were shot on film.
>>>>> Once
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> a while, I set up my darkroom (bedroom for the dry part and
>>>>> connecting
>>>>>>>> bathroom for the wet part) and enlarge a dozen prints. Nothing
>> beats
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> smell of fixer for nostalgia.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Bests
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dan K.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:34 PM, lluisripollphotography <
>>>>>>>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Jayanand,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The best B&W is from the darkroom, now I’ve been back I regret to
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> spent so much time and money on digital….
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>> Lluis
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> El 16 maig 2017, a les 5:05, Jayanand Govindaraj <
>>>>> jayanand at gmail.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> va escriure:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If it catches anybody's fancy!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/175814937/filmlab-an-
>>>>>>>>> app-for-viewing-and-digitizing-analog-f
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>> Jayanand
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Tina Manley
>> www.tinamanley.com
>> tina-manley.artistwebsites.com
>> 
>> http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the LUG mailing list