Aaron,
It was scanned, at low resolution, from a 4x6 print, on a cheap flatbed
scanner. The original has more detail, but not much.
Those points you mentioned are exactly the ones I wish were more detailed.
Unfortunately, I don't scan or print myself. Here in Brazil it's still less
expensive to have my rolls developed and printed, even enlarged, at a
minilab. Since Delta 3200 is not a C-41 B&W film, I intend to have it
manually developed at a custom lab. I believe there won't be any problems,
if I tell them what ISO speed I set at the time of exposure.
Following the majority's opinion, I'll try it first at ISO 1600 and see what
happens, before trying higher ISO speeds.
One more question: would the metering of a KM or K1000 be able to hand that
kind of dim subjects? From other posts I've read about it, these bodies
won't measure light with faster film and longer exposures... Would an MX be
a better choice(remembering that it's ISO range won't go past 1600, anyway)?
Thanks again,
Eduardo.
>I think, though, if this scan is a good representation of the neg, that
>more detail could be pulled out of the counter and tabletop and bottles
>on the shelves by halving the ISO. The reduced sensitivity of b&w film
>under tungsten light is one of those ol' problematical bears that bites
>a lot of people trying low-light stuff and generally discourages them
>after their first try.
>
>-Aaron
-
-
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 .
