Re: [APML] LE400 (was: Unhypered Print Film)

[steve banbury <banburys@sonic.net>]

True, that was asserted--and PJ400 hypered or unhypered was considered
pretty good--see for example Jon Kolb's
site: http://home.datawest.net/jkolb/m42_region.htm.  
Referencing the archives, Jon didn't seem to think it absolutely needed
hypering.

I inferred you were hoping someone actually had some sample images using
LE400 so you could confirm the assertion and be reassured that
using LE400 was still considered a good idea by the list.

SteveB

At 03:19 PM 10/1/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I think the list had decided the 2 films are the same under different
>label.
>
>Steve
>
>>--- Original Message ---
>
>>Ummm--if the subject was the quality of LE400, why is the M31
>example you
>>cite labelled  "Film: Kodak PJ400"? 
>>
>>SteveB
>
>
>
>
>
>--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
> 


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>