ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 again



Bob Frost wrote:

> Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light
> microscopy many years ago. ;)

Mine's mostly from enlargers, many years ago:)  All I can say is that I
bought a condenser head for a Durst which  already had  a diffuser
head, because I wanted sharper,  contrastier, as alleged. And I was miffed
to find that, apart from being  almost exactly one paper grade contrastier
I could see no difference. If I used a harder grade with the diffuser head,
I could see no benefit at all from the condenser head even using a
magnifier. All I could see was marginally more blown extreme highlights,
already a problem with the (then new) straightline  films like TMax, more
scratches and marks. The  condenser head went back in its box and stayed
there.

Regards

Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.