"Real" B&W done anywhere but your own darkroom or "real" pro labs has
been crap for at least 40 years that I know of. If you've got negs you
really want great prints of, check with AG. He does custom printing that
others have praised. Chromogenic gives good 4x6 results because it was
reverse engineered to give good results with one of the most
standardized processes on the planet, C-41 processing and automated
consumer printing.
For soft and glowing, try a SIMA soft focus lens
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/SIMA/index.htm>. A different effect
than any regular lens designed to be sharp.
Moose
Siddiq wrote:
>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).
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|