Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Cold light v light bulb
From: Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 20:30:01 -0400

> It has nothing to do with the light sourse PER SE,

Of course it has to do with the light source.  The two light sources are 
significantly different.  They are a different color temperature, wave 
length, and intensity.  Cold light is also better dispersed, since it is 
not from a single source as an incandescent is.

I have done exactly what you say (I do use D76 1:1 in fact).  The cold 
light is quite distinguishably better (tonal range is broader and more 
defined, and the image itself has better definition).

Perhaps it is because I only have done it with MF and LF negatives in the 
past 10 or more years.  I have never really done any 'fine' prints with 
35mm.

I'm certainly not saying your prints with a light bulb aren't great...and 
you might think they are better than your experience with cold light 
enlargers, but my experience shows that cold lights are head and shoulders 
superior than a light bulb.  But, that's only my experience...