Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Good idea, Eric. Probably would be fun to do some science. It gets a bit expensive though both in time and in film. But I keep a notebook so we'll see. I absolutely agree that the scanning process evens out a lot. I don't even know how to do identical scans between rolls of film. Adam On 2/9/06, Eric <ericm@pobox.com> wrote: > Adam: > > >I took a lot of pictures but I liked this one simply because of the > >single blossom amid the hodge-podge of ground cover: > > > ><http://www.adambridge.com/Photos/2006/02/05/TX400-2006-02-05-Davis-6.jpg> > > I like, too. Well seen. > > >I processed this in XTOL 1:3 @ 68 degrees, manually. But this time I > >played with the agitation, reasoning that in its stronger > >concentration at the start of processing I should agitate more and > >then, as the developer was moving toward exhaustion, agitation should > >be curtailed so I agitated every 30 seconds for the first 4 minutes > >and then every minute there-after. > > I wonder if the difference between agitating every 30s vs 60s is really > going to jump out of a scan. From what I've seen, most scanners are the > great equalizers. Makes everything just a little bit more mushy. Lose a > little bit of detail that would have been retained in a straight wet print. > > Would be very interesting to see a comparison of identically exposed > negatives agitated slightly differently like you did to see if there's any > visible difference in the final print, especially if you scan and then > print > digitally. Would be interesting if somebody else aside from myself does > it, > that is. :) > > > > -- > Eric > http://canid.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >