Recent content by Harry Callahan

I see, thank you for the answer.

Well, Drew Wiley and apparently _T_ were not aware that i was talking about printing - though i am stating this for days now. Ok, if you understand what i`m talking about, then please, just for confirmation, tell me why i am focusing on printing only.

Sigh, i said right from the start that this desensitization does apply to Foma 200. I did not claim it to apply for Foma 400. Also i did not claim it to be the reasons for the Foma 400 problems in this thread here - all i said was that with Foma 200 apparently mechanical strain can lead to...

I brought this up because i once had the theory that pressure on the emulsion could create lower density on the negative. You said pressure only does produce higher density.

Unbelievable - i must be talking in a foreign language.

It is a general question about diffraction on formats bigger than 4x5 - and diffraction can occur in taking and printing. He is using the word "print"several times... he isn`t using the word "camera" once.

Well, he said he wasn`t referring to printing only, but he also asked about prints. As diffraction can occur in taking and printing his question is also about printing - and as diffraction could impair sharpness when printing, i focused on printing only and said so from the start:

Do you also own some "classical" folders? I can get that there is strain on the film in a Hasselblad-style magazine, but an (older) folder should be more gentle to the film...

Well, i am talking about defects not related to the backing paper but mechanical strain.

Well, i am talking about enlarging only for days now, i am mentioning it in (nearly) every post i made - and people keep coming, bringing up points not relating to what i am talking about. Also i am talking about enlarging big, because that`s what the OP was asking about, - and i said so several...

In case you`re interested, i found something by accident which could support my theory - though it is related to Foma 200: "FOMAPAN 200 Creative emulsion contains T-crystals providing high resolution and very low granularity of the film. Relating to this it may emerge its higher sensitivity to...

Oh, havn`t thought about that - yes that does explain the differences i found. I thought that the scanning software did some "improvement" on the raw data. Well, there still are several dust particles on both scans... maybe because of this it didn`t occur to me that some "de-dusting" has been...

You both are aware that i am talking about printing with an uncoated lens? Never was talking about taking pictures with an uncoated lens. And i am talking about printing negatives which are bigger than 4x5 - have there been zoom lenses for (U-)LF enlargers?

Did you use a different camera?

Movie film usually does have an AHL - unless it is print film, but then it`s also like 3 ISO...