Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/27

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Printing costs
From: sam <sam@osheaven.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:01:51 -0500
References: <LNBBLBNFHNEHGFKFMALGEEKJJPAB.timatherton@theedge.ca>

Yeah, but you got to admit that there is nothing quite like an 8x10 
transparency on a light table to put glee in your heart. A few months 
ago I was able to view some of Samual Chamberlain's 8x10 Kodachrome's 
from the 1950's. So nice. I noticed that 1950s Kodachrome appears to 
have been less contrasty than it is today.

Sam S



Tim Atherton wrote:

>>Ha ha, I see your problem. You shoot color negative. If you shot slides
>>you could blow the darn thing up to the size of the wall. Seriously, I
>>have stopped using color neg. materials. I shoot mostly b&w and slides.
>>Slides are perfect if you need an enlared negative which I often do. Of
>>course, not everyone is as wealty as I am.
>>
> 
> 
> On the contrary - I recently switched from transparency to negative film for
> 4x5 and 8x10 - in most circumstances it is far superior. And it enlarges
> equally well with a far great range. Scans from are quite luscious.
> 
> tim
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> 
> 

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

In reply to: Message from Tim Atherton <timatherton@theedge.ca> (RE: [Leica] Re: Printing costs)