Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:36 PM 2/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >Jim: > >While I generally agree that chrome film is better for testing, I had a >wake up last week. I shot some dryflies for a presentation. I wanted to >make a few prints as well so I was shooting with Velvia and Fuji Super G >100. There is no question that the neg film of higher speed has better >resolution of the fine details. To test it I scanned identical images >directly and the neg film is wins. > >Tom Tom, I'm not arguing with you, but this is the way I look at it. Looking at negs with a loupe doesn't do much. Looking at 1hr prints doesn't do much. If you are going to test lenses, you have to be able to see the results. If you print the negs yourself or pay for a pro lab, I suspect you would get a good comparison. I'm not arguing about how good some of the print film is, but wihtout extra work and expense, I believe print film is a poor choice. K25 or Velvia, a light box, and a good loupe, IMHO, is the best, and easiest way to compare lenses. Jim