Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2009/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Neopan Advice (now asking about Neopan 1600)
From: pasvorn at boonmark.net (Pasvorn Boonmark)
Date: Mon Jan 12 13:06:31 2009
References: <5f1be6b50901111739q1f4f1959o4e3fac4fe1af96f9@mail.gmail.com> <C590101B.48131%mark@rabinergroup.com> <c7c8cf880901120940j7e6e5024h8fd0e42970217f1e@mail.gmail.com> <p0623091bc59153f893e6@10.0.1.200>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>
wrote:
>
> Optimal negs for printing in a darkroom are not the optimal negs for
> scanning. For scanning slight underdevelopment is usually better, as denser
> negs are hard to scan. Exposure still has to be correct, but pull the
> development slightly.
>
>
Henning,
Thank you very much for your answer.
This explains a lot of problem that I have. I was always wondering
why some of my Neopan 400 print better, and some scan better.
-Pasvorn
In reply to:
Message from ausdlk at gmail.com (David Keenan) ([Leica] Neopan Advice (now asking about Neopan 1600))
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Neopan Advice (now asking about Neopan 1600))
Message from pasvorn at boonmark.net (Pasvorn Boonmark) ([Leica] Neopan Advice (now asking about Neopan 1600))