Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Developers for Scanning Negs......was Rodinal and spots (was: xtol replacement)
From: "Christopher Williams" <leicachris@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:55:26 -0500
References: <3C9D8520-67F7-11D7-B842-000393802534@mac.com>

XP2 is the better C-41 for "wet" darkroom work even though I have had great
results with Portra 400 B&W in the darkoom. Exposure times are almost
doubled though because of the orange layer. Sharp and almost grainless
16x20's.

I have some XP2 20x24's that look excellent.

4x6 prints are just proofs, nothing more.

Chris
New Orleans

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Howard" Subject: Re: [Leica] Developers for Scanning
Negs......was Rodinal and spots (was: xtol replacement)


> For me, scanning is, and probably always will be, a secondary means of
> producing images.  Although I currently do significantly more scanning
> than printing, I want to retain the option of printing all my negatives
> in the future -- for when I have a proper darkroom.  It's not that I
> necessarily consider silver prints better thank inkjet prints -- I just
> like the aesthetics of silver prints more.
>
> The Kodak C-41 B&W films which incorporate the orange backing layer,
> make it easy to obtain prints in a commercial minilab on colour paper,
> at the expense of printing in the home darkroom on variable contrast
> paper.  While Portra 400 B&W certainly does produce stunning looking
> 4x6" prints from the minilab, my chief photographic interest doesn't
> lie in stunning looking 4x6" prints from the minilab.
>
> M.



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Martin Howard <mvhoward@mac.com> (Re: [Leica] Developers for Scanning Negs......was Rodinal and spots (was: xtol replacement))