Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Until this week I been taking pictures at the insane hard-drive bustin' rate of like 200 - per -day so there. Not that many of them were any good at all but still. I take that from no man.... The LUG is a beautiful community of saintly naked angles playing harps and old IIIf r.d.'s to the tune of Karen Carpentar's "Close to You" all day. That is, when they're not helping me out with a SIMPLE GODDAMNDED QUESTION -- which guess what, deserves indictment. Say, boys, whaddya like, Chevy or Ford? Next thing you know I'm lying in a pool of blood and Weegee is taking my picture. Big cop named of Hanrahan is pushing back the onlookers saying, "all right folks the show's over go on home now" etc etc. I mean, GEEZ. V On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com>wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >