Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> > I'm sorry you feel that way, Aaron.
>
> Twas sort of a joke, Shel. Thus, mister smiley --> :)
I know ... just playing it deadpan <g>
> Your example about the beakers
> is a very good one, and obviously
> we would not be accounting for it
> if we didn't know about it. Water
> also makes a difference, as silly
> as it seems.
No, it's not silly at all. Water can be as big a problem as
equipment or technique, especially in situations where a
developer may be sensitive to chemicals in the water, or the
water may be especially hard, or mineral laden. One developer
with which there seems to have been such problems is Xtol, at
least according to a couple of pros and processors that I know
of.
> I'd say working with a lab is like
> working with a new developer: it is
> unreasonable to expect your very first
> roll through to look exactly like
> the last roll you did in the old developer.
Well, that's essentially what I said.
> I think that writing off all labs
> because of a single bad experience
> with a single lab is a little rash,
> tho'.
Well, I don't think I said ~exactly~ that, although what I said
was pretty durned close. However, what I didn't say was that
I've had less than stellar results with another couple of labs,
but that was years ago, and before I became such a critical
curmudgeon.
> Out of curiosity, what were
> they using that made Tri-X look
> so very yucky?
I not sure what "yucky" means. The negatives were grainy - much
more grain than I prefer and much more grain than I get when
processing the film myself. I asked that the film be processed
in D-76 1:1 - there should not have been a problem.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The difference between a good photograph
and a great photograph is subtleties."
-
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.
