Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Erwin, I'm sure that your comments re MTF, resoulution, and contrast are quite correct. However, for my purposes--accurate color rendition of art objects and other scenes--K25 is simply the best. If you compare the slide to the object, the colors are more nearly the same than wit hother color films that I have tried. Some color films seem too "hot" or reved up, and I find that objectional. To me it is anagolous to sound engineers who make recordings of music sound as they think it should sound rather than trying to reproduce what the musicians produced. Certainly the artists that I work with always pick the K25 slides as best. Sincerely, Joe Stephenson - -----Original Message----- [cut] >Why then is K for many purposes the better film: it is grain based where >the V is dye cloud based. Recall that a dye cloud image is being generated >by arificially restraining the growth of clumps of grain and replacing them >by dye clouds of about the same dimension at about the same location. Note >the vagueness here? A grain image is an exact replica of the optical image >falling onto the emulsion. The dye cloud image is a chemical interpretation >of this image. >The capture of fine detail is better preserved with the grain based image >and its 'hard' edges against the finer (smaller) dye cloud based image with >the soft edges. > >This is same the reason why fine grain developers in fact kill fine detail >and acutance developers enhance fine detail up to the limit of grain noise. >Recall the Rodinal discussion? > >As in optical evaluation we must become accustomed to the fact that >resolution figures are out and MTF graphs are in. Thats reality. > > >Erwin > >