Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The negatives look superficially okay to the naked eye, but scan as though they are grossly overexposed. I'm using a Nikon Cooslcan III. I have considered just shooting at 800, but it is difficult unless I start using filters (or start shooting at 1/500 and f/22, which doesn't give me great results). T400CN scans great, but finding a place that will develop it without scratching the negs has been difficult. Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Adam Bridge Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:10 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: RE: [Leica] New TriX On Friday, April 9, 2004 Jeffery Smith thoughtfully wrote: >I share your pain. Now that I scan and use digital, Tri-X went from my >favorite film to my least favorite film. I'd like to like it. Anyone >have a recommendation for a good 35mm scanner that can scan Tri-X >without it looking like crap? So far, developing it in Paterson FX50 >seems to help since it leave very thin negatives. I don't know what to do with comments like this because I don't know what the objections are that you're having. I have been shooting a lot of the new Tri-X and find it scans fine on my Nikon 4000. What is it that you aren't liking? What are the effects of scanning it? It doesn't scan like TCN, that's for sure. I haven't tried the new B&W from Kodak yet. I'll probably stock on on TCN since right now its cheap. But I'd like to know what you are experiencing. Adam _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information