i was going thru a stack of old photos, and it dawned on me that all the
stuff shot on chromogenic (XP2 super, or BW+400) and processed at minilabs
turned out fantastic, whereas real b/w (Tri-X, Delta100) sent off to Kodak
came back loooking awful, harsh, contrasty, and overall rather unpleasant.
why is it that a minilab turned out far nicer prints than a real lab, one
that does b/w no less. granted, nothing will look as nice as a darkroom
print worked over with love and patience, but somehow i was hoping for and
expecting more in using a real b/w film and have it processed and printed
by a place that assuredly would know what it was doing (vs the automagik
minilab).
that, and the 135mm lens i have for my grandad's exa, very soft and low
contrast, but just so *right* for portraits (vs the 200 zuiko i have which
make the subject's skin look unflattering).
--
/S
aim:iddibhai
icq:104079359
email/msn:msidd004atstudentdotucrdotedu
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|