Digital BW, The Print

I have not tried the sepia tone (warm) and have only tried the 
neutral because I figured if I wanted sepia tone I could do it 
myself in photoshop.  You get me thinking however as the warm might 
give a variance in grain, acutance..ect.  I would doubt by much but 
it is worth checking into.  You know DR5 gives a discount for 
testing a few rolls.  Maybe it would be good to test a couple in 
neutral and a couple in warm and see what you like.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael 
Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
>
> Does it matter if it is the warm or neutral process?
> 
> --- joshscapes <joshrandall@...> wrote:
> 
> > Michael, 
> > 
> > I have tried the DR5 process and love it.  I shoot
> > 6x7 and scan using a Microtek Artixscan 
> > 120f.  I find that the DR5 scans have more latitute,
> > more detail, and less grain.  Also you 
> > don't have to invert which is great as you save
> > another altering step.  I swear by it, but I 
> > would say that you have to like the look.  I happen
> > to love the look of tmax100 with dr5.  
> > It helps control those highlights that are so hard
> > to control with tmax100.  It is extremely 
> > easy to scan.  I have also used it with efke 25 film
> > and find that it is nice as well.  Although 
> > I have no comparison to compare the efke 25 with
> > since i only have used it with dr5.  The 
> > tmax i have used for years developed the traditional
> > way so I can say from exprience that 
> > for me I prefer tmax 100 in dr5 than in any other
> > process I have tried.  I shoot landscape 
> > photography on a tripod so you will know where i am
> > coming from.  It is expensive 
> > however costing about $13 dollars a roll.  For me
> > though, the results it gives you are 
> > worth it.  
> > 
> > My thoughts,
> > 
> > Josh Randall
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Michael Vendrell 
> > <mjvendrell2@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> > > reversal processing a try for some selected B&W
> > films
> > > as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> > > with their characteristics on his site which makes
> > for
> > > impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> > > experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> > > before, but does anyone have further thoughts
> > about
> > > scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a
> > scanner
> > > such as the Nikon 9000?
> > > 
> > > --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image
> > than
> > > > HC-110, 
> > > > > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> > > > better, 
> > > > > more subtle tonal separations.
> > > > 
> > > > When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax
> > 100
> > > > with Xtol will probably
> > > > be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> > > > adjacency I've seen in a
> > > > developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain. 
> > I
> > > > would have considered it
> > > > too soft for the enlarger, but with a good
> > scanner
> > > > and unsharp masking in
> > > > Photoshop, I now think low grain is more
> > important
> > > > than chemically-sharpened
> > > > film.
> > > > 
> > > > > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus
> > selenium
> > > > toning, my pictures are
> > > > > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> > > > 
> > > > The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house
> > plans
> > > > and were very concerned
> > > > about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> > > > Microdol X was at the top of
> > > > their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> > > > apparently, in part to avoid these
> > > > problems.  The health of the sewer systems is
> > one of
> > > > its main points.
> > > > 
> > > > Paul
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>