Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 6/12/05 2:13 PM, "feli" <feli2@earthlink.net> typed: > Maybe someone has more insight in to this, but I've noticed a pattern > here. > > I shoot Tri-X 99% of the time. > > I bounce around between three 50's- a DR, pre-ASPH Lux and current Cron. > > Now, call me crazy, but I swear that the grain is more pronounced with > the current Cron, than with the DR. I wonder if this is do to the > higher contrast fingerprint of the current Cron. Perhaps it is a micro > contrast issue? In that respect the DR is a lot more mellow than the > current Cron. > > Anyone? > > > feli > According to the way I think of it; it's the opposite. Say you have an old flat lens. You make a print with it and it comes out flatter than your normal stuff from most your other lenses on that roll. So you've got to jack up the contrast by using a higher contrast filter or paper to get it to look right. And that's going to add grain to that image. So I believe the use of such older flatter glass makes for images in effect which have more grain. You've got to use snapper paper to compensate for the flat image and that makes for increased grain. Hence the opposite. Using a snappy lens makes for an image which can be printed with less filtration, (not a whole lot of extra magenta) as the image has more inherent contrast in it in the first place. The negative I think of as being "more clear". Less phlegm to cut through. So a modern high end optic would result in an image which not only excels in any number of ways optically. But also in a print which would have less pronounced grain. This is how I've experienced it and think of it. But I've not READ it to be true from other sources. But If I'm wrong I'd love to hear why. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/