Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't understand your response...... Which Kodak print film are you referring to? I am concerned with Royal Gold 25 through 200. Are you saying these films are made exclusively for duplicating to slides? Then why are they targeted at the general market? I am not going from negative to positive. I am using slide film NOW and have been for the past 2 years exclusively because I have always been told it provides the best quality for scanning and enlarging. Now I read and am being told the opposite.....that print film scans and enlarges better. I am just asking LUGgers if they have any experience in comparing the quality of enlargements from both types of film and the quality of scans from both types of film..... At 05:43 PM 3/29/98 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-29 17:21:36 EST, you write: ><< > I have asked this question one time already and gotten one good > comment. I am posting it again with the hopes someone else will > see it and comment. > >> > Kodak print film is a low contrast self-masking film specifically designed > for making slides from color negatives. To go from negative color to positive > just for scanning purposes would seem a little redundant when excellent > results can be obtained directly from the original negatives. Digital >repro's > do offer somewhat of a loss-less duplication but that is not true of photo- > graphic duplication & it would be better to stick with the negative or >chromes. > > Marvin Moss > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/