Oh my mistake! I thought the Canon was a flatbed. Sorry. They looked really good, no wonder!
Typical problem on many lenses. Just a bit of dirt / lack of cleaniness on the internal cam that sets the aperture diameter will make f22 appear the same as f16. Even f16 equal to f11 in some cases.
I have a Pentax Super-A as they are called in the UK, and an ME Super. Learned on my Dad's old K1000. Love them both. I have tried an MX and loved it apart from the shutter lock on the wind on lever. I just couldn't get on with it, is there any way around this? I'd like a fully mechanical Pentax so I'm considering an LX, but prefer the size and shape of the M cameras.
Those images look rather aggressively oversharpened - the grain/ scanner noise is hyper defined in a way that HP5 (whether darkroom printed or scanned appropriately) is not.
Should add that choice of developer has very little to do with this behaviour.
Maybe you can elaborate with examples? Trust me that's the way the emulsion looks, using a dedicated film scanner with no unsharp mask going at 4000dpi.
Flatbed scanners on the other hand if that's what you're using is going to be quite a bit softer straight off the bed compared to a dedicated scanner which can focus right on the grain of the emulsion rather than relying on a fixed distance.
The above in both HP5+ and AUE 200 is pretty much the kind of grain I see when I focus in the enlarger with a grain focuser (showing me the microscopic grain to focus on as opposed to trying to focus the image itself).
I don't think you know Dead Link Removed.
Frankly, I have better things to do than waste my time arguing about this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?