Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henning, Thanks. You'll see I told off old Steve about his merde on the LUG thing. On the contrast front I was talking results after scanning. I take the images for processing and scanning. And my sense of the Ilford was, to put it in my terms which are not perhaps comprehensible -- but everything tended to look "grayed out." But who can tell what's the processing mistake, what's the scanning mistake, what's the photographer's mistake? I mean, you could probably tell. But I couldn't. Meanwhile someone else said the Kodak has less contrast than Ilford, not more. VMany thankis, again, V On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com>wrote: > At 11:32 PM -0400 3/29/10, 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. >> >> > > > If you won't develop Tri-X then I take it you don't do enlarging. In that > case low contrast is your friend, as scanners are much more forgiving of > low > contrast than medium or high contrast. > > I've used various C41 films; Kodak (various flavours), Ilford XP and XP2 > and Agfa's. All work fine for scanning. For printing I like the Ilford XP2 > best if I do it myself. Photofinishers generally like the Kodak films > better. > > > -- > > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >