RE: [pinhole-discussion] re: paper negative

[Scott Guthrie]

The logo on Kodak paper makes it unsuitable for using as a negative, in my 
experience, which is to bad because the paper is nice and I would love to 
suppport an American company.


Mitch


From: George L Smyth 
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] re: paper negative
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:10:39 -0700 (PDT)

Has anyone ever confirmed that the logo on the back affects the image?  As
previously stated, when I tried a Kodak paper (it was probably Polycontrast
III) I saw no logo when I contact-printed the negative.

Cheers -

george



--- D Hill  wrote:
>
>  Another note on papers.  I used to use Ilford, but I got cranky at the 
price
> one day so I picked up a box of Mitsubishi Gekko Matte, tried it and 
liked it

> - and It's also great for proofs.  It is a wonderful matte surface VC RC
> paper, and is quite inexpensive at about $33 for 100 - 8x10.  It does 
not
> have the logo imprinted on the back.  You can get the stuff through 
Freestyle

> if you want to try it.  However, if all of us run out to freestyle to
> purchase the great inexpensive paper - they just might play the kodak 
game

> and charge up the price.  Ah, the joys of photography.
> Don
>   Andy Schmitt  wrote: confirmed...Ilford is logo
> free...
> andy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???
> [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of James
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 7:40 PM
> To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
> Subject: [pinhole-discussion] re: paper negative
>
>
> on paper negatives: seagull oriental brand papers (confirmed with my own
> eyes) and forte brand (as told by company representative) do not have 
logos.
> i've heard that ilford is also logo free. ISO is between 6 and 2. i've 
been
> using film developer for about 5-10 minutes, and this reduces the 
contrast
> somewhat. you might take a took at this url, the history and how to of 
paper

> negatives, including info on william mortenson's special techniques:
>
> http://www.photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa051302a.htm
>
>
> --
> James Luckett
> http://consumptive.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.???/discussion/
>
>
> ___
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???
> unsubscribe or change your account at
> http://www.???/discussion/
>
>
> -
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup


=
Handmade Photographic Images
http://GLSmyth.com
DRiP Investing
http://DRiPInvesting.org

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

___
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???
unsubscribe or change your account at
http://www.???/discussion/



_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: [pinhole-discussion] re: paper negative

[Scott Guthrie]

I use ilford Multigrade IV and it does not have writing on the back like 
Kodak. Film speed about 6.


Mitch Guthrie

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: [pinhole-discussion] speed of paper versus film

[Scott Guthrie]

Ah now that is a fun question, while in my expirence the "speed" of 
enlarging paper such as Ilford Multigrade IV paper is mentioned in the 
documentation that value because of reciprocity and surely other factors 
does not translate into a related film speed.  Others may have different 
experence.  What i ended up doing was what you should do with film as well 
is rate the paper yourself based upon the metering you employ eyeball or 
otherwise and create an exposure table.


Mitch



From: lwilkin...@schilli.com
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] speed of paper versus film
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:27:00 -0500

I'm struggling to understand the relationship between film and photographic
paper.

Specifically, calculating exposures, etc.

Where film may be considered ASA 100, paper may be considered P100.

Obviously, it's not the same 100...but what's the relationship?

Thanks in advance for any assistance, Lou

___
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???
unsubscribe or change your account at
http://www.???/discussion/



_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole is not about "sharpness"?

[Scott Guthrie]

That is a heck of a good image, my idea of an ideal pinhole image, well 
executed no matter what the apeture.


Mitch Guthrie



From: ragowaring 
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
To: 
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinhole is not about "sharpness"?
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:35:01 +0100


>
> On Tuesday 07 May 2002 09:51 pm, michael_georg...@trendmicro.com wrote:
>> Perhaps the majority of pinhole is not at all concerned with sharpness.
>> There are many, many of what I consider Pictorial shooters, achieving 
great

>> soft images, some very dreamlike.  Very nice stuff! (eg: Davison's The
>> Onion Field, etc, etc).  The WWPD gallery is full of great, soft 
pinhole

>> images.
>
>
> I have had people who couldn't believe that some Finney pics I made
> were actually pinhole, due to sharpness.  Using the "correct" focal 
length and

> aperature, I was able to get this amount of detail:
>
> http://hiddenworld.net:81/pinhole/?cmd=max&start=&pic=blackbeard.jpg
>
> I don't mind not having "razor" sharpness, but I like a certain level of
> clarity...


I like you picture Jeff


Alexis


___
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
Pinhole-Discussion mailing list
Pinhole-Discussion@p at ???
unsubscribe or change your account at
http://www.???/discussion/



_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com