Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/10/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, I agree that you're not a slouch, when it comes to printing and using your darkroom. But, Neopan 1600 has such poor resolution, that it's my film of choice for C/V lenses. It's very forgiving for those lenses, and equates fairly well the dynamic range of films experienced by the LTM shooters of bygone days. On the other hand, you'd do better pushing Neopan 400 to 800, with an appropriate developer. The Neopan 400 pushed, is far better for the reasons you mentioned earlier, than Neopan 1600 pulled. Slobodan D. On Oct 26, 2007, at 12:13 AM, Marty Deveney wrote: > Uploads They're here: http://gallery.leica-users.org/main.php?g2_itemId=7617 The Japan, Tsukiji and Rachel galleries are 100% Neopan 1600 at EI640. Thesehttp://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Russia/ Pavel_with_Bychowsky_portrait.jpg.html http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Russia/ St_P_XXIX.jpg.htmlhttp://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Russia/ St_P_XXXIV.jpg.htmlare Neopan 400 at EI200, the outdoor ones with a deep yellow, or maybe a yellow-green (B+W 060 - I think?) filter. This shot:http:// gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Portraits/File0585.jpg.htmlis from Neopan 400 at EI400 with 20% more development than I normally give it, to compensate for very flat light in our living room. It's all developed in Xtol 1+3 or a home-made equivalent. Scanning frustrates me and I need to get better at it (and get a better scanner - these were all made with an Epson 4870). Slobodan has several silver gelatin prints of mine from the print exchange and I think that these are a better indication of my general abilities, but these scans are indicative. I also have a pile of sensitometric information to support my approach, but as I said in the previous e-mail, I prefer to work by using the "if it aint broke" approach. After all, all the speed standards, CI guidelines etc were based on work by Kodak that used visual appraisals of prints to determine what was "normal". It's also interesting that Kodak changed the standard in the 1950s sometime so that all their films doubled in speed overnight (this is when Tri-X went from being a 200 speed film to a 400 speed film - I've wondered if it was reformulated at that time, but have never been able to find out). Marty -- Want an e-mail address like mine? Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information