Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Martin, They are scanned directly from the negatives. I think with a little more experience and playing around with curves they could be better. I didn't include some of the available light stuff (indoors) in the PAW, but it looks pretty nice. I'll scan in a window lighting shot and put it up under a temp area. I think you might be right, the new Tri-X might be easier to scan. I haven't tried printing yet, but will be doing that this evening. I used a yellow and orange filter (not at the same time, of course). I've got my daughter doing more testing now (unknowingly). She wants to take b&w so she's running around with an F3 (off topic), a 50 and unlimited supply of the new Tri-X. Just to stay on topic, I saw a beat-up Leicaflex SL with a 50 Summicron for 150 USD. I was in a hurry and didn't get a chance to ascertain whether or not it had been dredged up from the fjord or if it really worked. Anyway, she'll be giving Tri-X 400TX a try. But I'm pretty sure that all Tri-X users can feel secure. I wouldn't go stock up on a batch of the older emulsion unless I was smack dab in the middle of a project. Thanks for looking! Daniel >Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 10:43:57 -0700 >From: Martin Howard <mvhoward@mac.com> >Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW 14 dlridings >Message-ID: <57E60106-6857-11D7-9FF1-000393802534@mac.com> >References: > >Are these scans from the negatives or from prints? If they are neg >scans, then it would appear that New Tri-X scans better than old Tri-X. > The tonality of this stuff is lovely. Alt2 even has a bit of that >"old", high-silver 1930s look to it. Did you use any filter, or are >these straight unfiltered shots? > >M. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html