Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim: We are in complete agreement on this one. Tom At 08:38 PM 2/10/98 -0800, you wrote: >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 > >