Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yeah maybe one day. But I also like the possibility that I've confirmed I was right the first time. Plus I have a sentimental attachment to Kodak and a distaste for Ilford. Photographer I worked for in the early 80s sent me out by goddam Port Authority bus and shank's mare as my grandmother used to say on a blasting summer day to some god awful corporate castle in New Jersey of Ilford's to pick up some kind of special paper he wanted. Then he was pissed it took me so long. I'm talking like a mile and a half in blank Jersey industrial park at 96 degrees. Then bus. So it's hard to love Ilford. Meanwhile people ask other's people's opinions here ALL THE TIME SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ALLUVA SUDDEN? On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com>wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > > > Cause back when I was using it I didn't know shit. I still don't know > shit > > but I know a little more shit now. If there had been this overwhelming > > universal positive response to the Ilford -- if people said OMG it's the > > Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake of color-process black and white film OMG > > OMG!!!--- then I would have tried it once or twice more to see if I liked > it > > any better. > > > so try both now.... > > > Steve > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at > > gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > >> > >>> Nah you misunderstood: "that's why I'm asking people's opinion's...." > >> about > >>> which one they think is best. The Kodak or the Ilford. Kodak seems to > be > >>> winning which was my experience. The Ilford was too low contrast in my > >>> experience. > >> > >> who cares "what people think", it only matters what you think... > >> > >> basically... > >> > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Steve Barbour < > steve.barbour at gmail.com > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Vince Passaro wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I lvoe Tri X but cannot process it myself and find it increasingly > >>>> expensive > >>>>> to have it done. The C41s can be done anywhere by anybody and put on > >>>> disk. > >>>>> That's why I'm asking people's opinions. > >>>> > >>>> C41bw is terrific for the reasons stated, what's to ask ?... > >>>> > >>>> it's clear, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/28/2010 12:13 AM, Vince Passaro wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm contemplating C41 b and w film. I've used the Kodak and liked > it > >>>>>>> sometimes and not others (dependong on factors I was too ignorant > to > >>>> learn > >>>>>>> how to control at the time, I suspect). My impression though was > that > >>>>>>> Koday > >>>>>>> was the best of them but I do recollect an Ilford that some people > >>>>>>> liked... > >>>>>>> perhaps it was that 50 ASA of theirs? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyone using C41 and feel knowledgeable and opinionated enough to > >>>> declare > >>>>>>> differences and preferences? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Or, here's another question: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I see on B&H site that there's a Mamiya medium format digital > camera > >>>> for > >>>>>>> under $10K, called the DM22. Anyone know about it, have an opinon, > >> etc? > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>> the price it comes with an 80mm lens, which I guess is kind of an > >>>>>>> equivalent > >>>>>>> to normal size lens? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And finally: among you GF1 fanatics out there -- does anyone know > why > >>>> you > >>>>>>> can buy the GF! with the 20mm as a kit in Europe but, after a brief > >>>>>>> availablility, not here? (here being the good ole' US of A folks. > >> TGeam > >>>>>>> America. Burn the camera in order to save it. Semper Fi. all > that.)_ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Vince > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> The Kodak C41 film scans very well, and that is a good thing because > >> it > >>>>>> will not last that long as a film negative. Plus, you can use > digital > >>>> ICE > >>>>>> with the C41 films. I never had much luck printing either the Kodak > >> or > >>>>>> Ilford C41 films in the darkroom. That is TriX etc. territory. If > I > >>>> had > >>>>>> to go back to film, I would try Kodak C41 if available and a pro lab > >> to > >>>>>> process. Remember that if circumstances permit you can bracket > ISO's > >>>> with > >>>>>> these films and likely come up with something you will like. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken Carney > >>>>>> Oklahoma City, Oklahoma > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >