Earlier in the thread, Mafud posted:
> > I had the remainder of a roll of Fuji Superia in my camera on
> a storm damage
> > shoot. Outside, with only 4 frames to go, I shot the downed
> limbs and wires.
> > Done with the Fuji, I loaded Supra and finished the job. I was
> startled at
> > the proofs. The same lens-camera-venue and trees, grounds,
> house, the entire
> > outdoor scene, with the Fuji, wherever there *might* be
> green-was green. The
> > Supra stuff showed dead patches, brown grass-all the "seen on
> the scene"
> > stuff. Side by side, and if a stranger didn't know it was the
> same backyard,
> > they would swear they were different yards.
Not to nitpick, but you /are/ comparing the cheap-and-cheerful Fuji film
to the expensive-and-professional Kodak one. Superia is set up to bring
out that green green grass in shots of the family picnic, Supra is more
about accuracy.
That said, the emphasis of each manufacturer's film is obviously
different, and it is up to our personal tastes as photographers to pick
the one we like best. I do imagine that Kodak Gold 100 would give you
similarly inaccurate results in the same situation.
Mafud, I'd be curious as to your opinion on Agfa Portrait. Not so much
in terms of grain (it is outclassed by its competition in this area, but
I tend to shoot it 67 and not worry about it), but in terms of its tonal
range and colour. I bring it up because of your comments earlier in the
thread about Ektapress and dark skintones, and because one time I
photographed a gentleman with exceptionally dark skin on Agfa Portrait
and was quite pleased with the detail and tone that resulted (I think I
ended up printing on Agfa Portrait Lustre paper, very similar to Kodak's
Portra paper in contrast).
...and now that I've thought about it, I want to go dig up that neg and
make a new print of it.
Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
