Hello Mafud
The "enhanced" film though, was used with both camera/lens setups, no?
Wouldn't that then seem to indicate that the difference is in the lenses
and/or cameras?
But maybe you're on to something; perhaps the Canon FD 1.8 required the film
enhancements to operate well, while the Pentax FA did not like them? In any
case, I think I'll have to experiment not only with film, as per your
suggestion, but also with my ZX-M's memory lock and exposure compensation
features.... I'll try the same shots again with the M and the same Superia
film, only this time I'll try bracketing shots with the EV compensation
setting adjustments...
(I just picked up a copy of the "Magic Lantern Guide" for the ZX-M and
K-1000; should be able to learn some new stuff there, too...)
Thanks for responding,
Skip
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Comparing an FA 50mm 1.4 to an FD 50mm 1.8....
> In a message dated 1/15/01 11:37:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << The Pentax FA, on the other hand, is much sharper but the contrast is
too
> much. Too bright on the windows, too dark in the interiors.... >>
>
> Keeping in mind you were shooting an "enhanced" print film, it would be
> interesting to know which lens more accurately reflected what *you* saw,
as
> opposed to film results.
> Perhaps the film results would have been different had you used a Portra
film
> for instance?
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
> http://pug.komkon.org.
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
http://pug.komkon.org.
