Norm, I'll send you an article file off list. Basically, only those with access to a variety of enlargers really understand the rather large differences that the enlarger light source has on the appearance of b&w films in the print. I once made enlargements of the same two negatives on a Saunders 4500II and a Leitz Iic (magnificent machine, but a bit like driving a Duesenberg to work--I wouldnąt want to have to print on it all the time). I wish I could find those prints--the differences were remarkable, and highly instructive.
--Mike Norm B. wrote: > You're talking about different enlarger light sources right, diffused, cold, > etc.? > Care to expound Mike? > Norm > > Mike Johnston wrote: > >> No. It's the enlarger. The difference in perceived grain between a highly >> collimated light source and a true diffuse light source is extremely >> significant. Most enlargers are somewhere in the middle. >> >> This is one thing that causes differences in reports of the graininess of >> films. Some people can say "Tri-X has golf-ball grain" and others can say >> "Tri-X has extremely fine grain for a fast film" and both can be right. - 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 .
