atk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> -- are there print films signifantly
> sharper than kodak gold 100 ?
Significantly? I don't think so. Over Christmas I grabbed some Gold
100 to photograph some of my mother's valuables for insurance purposes.
She ran it down to Costco, where they print machine 6X9's on the very
hard Crystal Archive consumer paper. You couldn't have had any more
sharpness or less grain out of that size print. In a very large size
print you might see some improvement with Royal Gold. Kodak markets
their film with finesse; in addition most photo magazine editors, for
various reasons, feel the need to play up the differences in film lines,
even if those differences only show up in 30X micrographs of a
mannequin's eyelash.
The real distinctions among 100 ASA C-41 have to do with contrast and
color balnce, not sharpness. Vericolor, for instance, fails the
mannequin eyelash test miserably but is still a beautiful film for
portraits or even landscapes.
> Unrelated (and even worse question) in gary test is the difference between
> an 'A' grade and 'B' grade visible in an 8x10
I think Gary uses tungsten slide film and he may project them for
comparative testing.
Morgan Sparks
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|