Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/16

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Lunasix 3 issue
From: Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:20:16 -0800
References: <OF9A7BA956.CF37C0E8-ON86256DFE.004F4FAC-86256DFE.004FADEC@crnotes2.rockwellcollins.com> <025f01c3c411$c7aa9800$0100a8c0@Desktop> <3FDF735C.415055C@rabinergroup.com>

I'm with you Mark, there are much better solutions. Tri-X beyond 1600 
in ANY developer is nonsense.

Eric Welch
Carlsbad, CA
http://www.jphotog.com

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist 
the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H. L. Mencken
On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:04 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> Saying you're rating your Tri x at 3200-6400 is like saying you're
> underexposing 3 or 4 stops!!!! and you're developing is making up for
> this somehow....???
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from grduprey@rockwellcollins.com (Re: [Leica] OT: Lunasix 3 issue)
Message from "Steven Blutter" <steven2244@ameritech.net> (Re: [Leica] OT: Lunasix 3 issue)
Message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> (Re: [Leica] OT: Lunasix 3 issue)