Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/09

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

Subject: [Leica] Curious about enlargements made by LUG forum members
From: pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig)
Date: Sat Jul 9 09:11:49 2005
References: <42CFB499.2040408@adrenaline.com>

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

> What typical enlargements do folks *typically* make from their 135
> format negatives exposed with their Leica gear.
> 
> I hear alot about Walmart and Costco processing, but I imagine that
> many folks make much larger prints as well.  Some comments make
> me think that for some folks the image lives on a slide on a light table.
> 
> I guess I'm also curious about lab wet printing vs. home/darkroom
> self wet printing vs. scan + digital printing.
> 
> Does the type of pic influence the enlargement size?  Landscape vs.
> potraiture vs. street shooting and so on?  What about hand held vs.
> tripod mounted camera shots?  Film choice?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any shared experiences.
> 
> I'm trying to  "dial in" my own expectations, particularly self-scanned/
> digi-printed B&W prints vs. lab/wet printed prints (I don't have my own
> darkroom).
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
Scott,

I get mine processed by a local camera dev+print shop so I guess that it is 
like 
Costco etc. I get them to dev as standard C-41 then scan the negs as .Tiffs 
and 
this gives me all the info that I need. Apart from issues of scan density, 
this 
gives me pretty much all that I would get from a digital (RAW) image at that 
scan density. The output you can see on my PAW pages etc;

http://gallery.leica-users.org/album164

it does vary, but seems to be getting better even on 400ASA.

Peter Dzwig


In reply to: Message from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) ([Leica] Curious about enlargements made by LUG forum members)