In a message dated 6/22/2006 12:28:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
GMcGrath@xxxxxxx writes:
I'd appreciate any and all opinions on the subject.
Greg, "You may be the man" but in this case if you are looking for any and
all opinions from this group, you have opened a mighty big door. Do that
again and we might say, "You be the foolish man."
I don't know the answer, however, for the first time in thirty years I spent
all day today in a B&W lab printing B&W prints from negatives I shot with my
OM 2S in the past two weeks. It was a blast. So if you can figure out how
to gain access to a lab, that might be a choice.
A friend who prints all his own B&W, says he has started using the Kodak
C-41 processed B&W. He says he likes the lack of grain. Hmm, I'm not sure
I'd
say the same . . . I'll let you know when I process the roll of Tri-X I shot
at ASA 1600 ( that would be ISO to those born after the OM 1 was introduced)
Wednesday night.
I've scanned some negatives (120 not 35mm) and was reasonably pleased with
the results. I'm sure others with more techno skills could have done better,
however they worked for me. Used an Epson 3200 scanner. Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|