Re: Maco 4x5 experience + question

[Ben Kreunen <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:51 PM 12/04/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>I have the impression that most of the negatives are underexposed by two 
>stops.
>
>Some questions:
>- can the underexposure be explained by the difference of a Kodak 89b 
>filter (680 nm) and the Lee filter (730 nm)??

Too many people seem to think that proper testing is a waste of money  :(

Most underexposure of any BW film can be explained 
by...  underexposure.  If this was your first processing of the film with 
that filter then you have nothing to compare it with and unfortunately only 
have yourself to blame.  Yes 4x5 film is relatively expensive but testing 
is still essential to find out what works for YOU.  I'm sure a box of 4x5 
film is cheaper than a second trip to Jordan.

Test, Test, Test!!!!!

Cheers

Ben

===================================
http://www.bigbenpublishing.com.au/
===================================

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************