Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Erwin, I've been reading your film test posts with great interest. You write [snipped]: > In my view the equation is: optical quality + emulsion quality = > image quality. > It is in my view very difficult to discuss IQ without taking into > consideration the EQ. Given the importance of EQ in the equation, I have two questions (and please forgive their rudimentary nature; I'm just starting out): 1. For someone whose goal is to produce printed photographs, will better IQ be achieved by using transparencies (K25 or K64, following your recommendation) and printing from them, or are negatives just as good (or better) for this purpose. In other words, are the qualitative differences determined by the better EQ in slide film apparent in print, or solely in projected images? 2. If the answer to the former question is that there is no difference, or it is negligible at best, then what print film(s) do you recommend for B&W and color? I understand that of all the elements in the equation for high image quality, most likely photographic technique is the predominant factor. That I can work on, and do work on. But having invested in the best optical quality there is, I'd like to ensure that the film I choose is not a weaker link in this chain than it need be. Also, on a more personal note, thank you once again for the help you offered me when I was wrestling with lens choices for my new M6. I chose the 50/2 Summicron for starters, and look forward to the 90/2 APO as a second lens in the future (based largely on your recommendation). Regards, Dan