In a message dated 2/20/01 8:32:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Mafud,
Would you say that Kodak Film/Paper/Chemicals is a better combination than
Fuji Film/Paper/Chemicals? >>
For KODAK film emulsions? Yes. I also believe the obverse is true,
FUJI/FUJI/FUJI is best for FUJI.
FUJI Crystal Archive paper is astounding, but KODAK'S own palette of papers
developed to ~expressly~ show off KODAK emulsions, do better.
My logic says: let a BMW person, with BMW parts and techniques, fix your BMW.
Yeah, Joe's Garage ~might~ be damn fine mechanics, but would you trust your
BMW to them?
I ~would~ again assert that "family" processing would account for truer
representation of the film (regardless of which) itself and what the
emulsion's manufacturers intended.
For example, in B&W, chemical developer "a" is known to produce finer grain
than chemical developer "b." Why? I don't know.
Having tested my assertion in color, I'd wager that Illford B&W emulsions
~probably~ (probably) perform better in Illford B&W chemicals than any other,
but who is to say except those who use Illford emulsions, Illford chemicals
and Illford paper?
In the processing game, at least in most venues and especially for those who
~do not~ have a professional lab close by to test my assertions, the commonly
accepted wisdom is "it doesn't matter whose chemicals you develop C-41
emulsions because they (the developing chemicals) are all the same." Others,
whose day in day out business ~is~ color and B&W film processing, so declare.
I simply don't believe that assertion.
**Having "pro" lab facilities close at hand has helped me and my
observations. Those with JOBO or other home type labs can directly prove ~or
disprove~ my theory themselves.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
