Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>At 07:11 AM 5/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>empirical methodology, I would direct you to read what Howard Bond says >>about the issue in the Jul/Aug 1995 issue of "Darkroom and Creative Camera >>Techniques," page 17. Think he finally lays this issue to rest...hopefully >>once and for all! > >Well, Howard Bond is a good photographer. And I've seen some of his original >prints in a local bed and breakfast here in Southern Oregon. But, I don't >think he's all that. And anyone who claims to put such this issue to rest >once and for all is fooling themselves. There are too many good >photographers who disagree. >It's not that one or the other is better, but finding which one works for >you. I personally have never had problems with sharpness with diffusion >enlargers, and considering the lack of spotting it gives a printer, I can't >see why anyone would use condensers, except to not have to pay to upgrade an >enlarger. > >========================== >Eric Welch >Grants Pass Daily Courier > > Really not an issue. We're not comparing tungsten (et al) diffusion light sources with condensors, we're comparing cold lights with condensors, a very different matter. Acutance IS certainly affected and is at issue with these smaller negatives when enlarged to many diameters with either type of diffusion. Cold lights add another problem that tungsten diffusion sources don't - printing with VC filters is VERY difficult since with most papers, the light source alone starts you out at between a 3 or 4 equivalent grade. Curt