Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?
From: steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:15:20 -0700
References: <19b6d42d1003272213l512b02f2m2f28f7ddcd82d132@mail.gmail.com> <4BB1575D.9010500@cox.net> <19b6d42d1003292005i232b2aa2oe312204e8a044fba@mail.gmail.com> <23AC56C7-DE39-4BED-8054-85224F6B94F1@gmail.com> <19b6d42d1003292032q7ba0c0f3n8ca6371c24bc0973@mail.gmail.com> <p0623091dc7d74a97cb93@192.168.1.5> <19b6d42d1003300653q3a86215h97cd139f9b3ae110@mail.gmail.com>

On Mar 30, 2010, at 6:53 AM, Vince Passaro wrote:

> Henning,
> Thanks. You'll see I told off old Steve about his merde on the LUG thing.

yes, and I appreciate it Vince... cus seriously, we all know that everything 
here is gospel. 
That's really what is so great about the LUG, it's so efficient, you can sit 
on your butt and collect opinions, 
it sure beats going out and taking a few pictures to find out for yourself.

Steve

> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
In reply to: Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] three questions: C41 b/w film; Mamiya DM22; why no US version of GF1 w 20mm kit?)