Subject: Re: Little OT -- Polaroid 55
2003-05-26 by HPA
THANK YOU BARBARA FOR THE BEST IDEA I HAVE HEARD ALL YEAR. WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!! THANKS!!! Tom Robinson
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Date: 25 May 2003 18:28:32 -0000 > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1536 > > Oh yes it is - at least it's the only film I use for proofing. > Especially in architecture and interiors, it's necessary to know that > you have good depth of field, and the negative is the only way to check > it. I just rip it off and look at it with a loupe, no need to develop > it or anything. Also, yes, it is contrastier than the film. However, if > I want the transparency to look "like" the 55 positive, I underexpose > the transparency one stop and push 1/2 and it get exactly what I want. > Also, I shoot both Portra NC and VC negative films with it. If I want a > print to look like the transparency (which looks like the polaroid) I > use the VC. It's more contrasty. > > But, Kevin is certainly right. The contrast of the positive is > drastically different. You just have to get used to it. > > Barbara >>