Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A greater range can be had in the final
> (Ilfochrome) print by using contrast masking. While this is
> certainly not cheaper than blasting an 8x10 from a negative,
> the results, IMO, are superior.
Hi Shel,
But an even greater range can be had in the final negative print by
dodging and burning, which is, of course, a masking technique. And while
the garden variety, fast photo negative prints leave a lot to be
desired, in my opinion, a top-notch negative print from a high-end lab
is far superior to anything that can be made from a transparency. If
transparency film were a better medium for printing, there would be no
need to produce negative film. That being said, I shoot a lot of
transparency film and frequently print the results. But my reasons are
more related to being able to see what's on the film and how accurate my
exposures are.
Paul
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
