----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Tortorella" Subject: Fuji or Kodak?
> Hi all, > > Among the less expensive, "non-pro" print films, which do you prefer, > Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am > wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 > speeds offered by both brands. I'm a little out of the film processing loop, but for fully 15 years, Kodak Gold 200 had what I thought was the nicest colour outside the pro films, and franky it was pretty much on par with the pro films. Fuji 200 was also very nice, as was the 400, the difference being the 200 had slightly softer contrast. When I was shooting a lot of weddings, and processing a lot of flm at my lab, I actually settled on Fuji 200 amateur film as my wedding film. This was back in the 80s, but I as of a year ago, I'd still recommend it. Kodak Gold 100 (if its still available, I had heard rumors it was being phased out), had a really solid, punchy quality to it which was good for scenic photography, not as good for people photography. Fuji 100 was much the same, though it's colour rendidtion wasn't as nice. The Fuji films really didn't seem to be as good at reds, I always thought the reds were a little wishy washy and lacking in tonal seperation. I preferred Ektar 1000 to the fast Fuji film, althought the Fuji did have finer grain. I think it morphed into Royal 1000, and I don't know if it can still be had. It was quite sensitive to heat and age, IIRC. I think at this point the most important criteria for a film is going to be how well it scans over any other particular quality. I don't recall if I scanned the negative or print for this. http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
