Hi Aaron, Unless the scans are way off, I think we can get a pretty good idea of what the final results might be like. Your comment is interesting in light of the recent discussion about the size and quality of PUG images, in which numerous people (including you, I believe) suggested that the PUG images and scans viewed on a computer screen give a reasonable enough representation of the final image.
So, unless the quality of these scans is abysmal - which they could be - I'd have to stand by my original comment. And, the quality of the photos or the scanned images notwithstanding, don't you feel that the quality of any photograph might suffer when the film is pushed 3 stops, especially when compared to using a faster film at or near its rated ISO? I'll grant you that some film/developer combinations may result in better quality than others, but overall, the faster film is often the better alternative. BTW, is T-Max Pro a different developer than T-Max? Maybe T-Max is not the best developer for this film. Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 01:02 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I don't think we can really judge the prints from these scans. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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 .
