Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John Straus wrote: > > on 11/6/02 1:58 PM, Mark Rabiner at mark@markrabiner.com wrote: > > > Not trying to be contentious, Rei, but i thought i knew my A&T backwards > > and forward could you give me a page number on that Neopan being a > > modified 400 ASA film and really being 640-800? This destroys my world! > > > > A lot of people i know are shooting it at 1600 and got having any > > problems with thin shadows at all! > > > > > > Mark Rabiner > > Portland, Oregon USA > > http://www.markrabiner.com > > Any chance of you posting a few current examples Rab? I also wonder if > scanning is a lot more harsh on the negs than B&W printing (as you do a lot > of darkroom work). My scans at 1600 suck especially with the Nikon LED... > > -- Will do soon John! Was interested to find that out, Rei I don't have my Anchell and Troop books handy or I'd have checked that out myself. I'm emptied a bunch of stuff into a back room so i can organized these front rooms. I'll scan some 8x10's I feel it gives a better feeling of the grain than scanning from the neg. But think of all these countless people severely underexposing there Neopan 1600 by over a full stop! You'd think a few of them would notice! You'd think I'd notice! That's the logical problem I've got with it being some kind of stripped down 640-800 film in which the asa remains 640-800. I'd think the stripping down process has made it a 1600 would it not? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html