>I agree with you about saturation and Kodachrome processing difficulties in
general, although I'm
>not experiencing them. The 7-day turn-around is not perceived as a
difficulty; it's a very reliable 7 days, occasionally 5 or >6.
The trunaround is not a problem for my personal work, although
professionally it is a deal buster. The real problem I see is both the
inconsistency (apparently there are some who can tolerate the magenta shift
better than I), and the likelyhood of water spots and dirt and scratches,
all too frequent with all Kodak chrome processing.
>1) A flaw exists with the Fujichromes that exhibits itself in specific
stuations. It is most prevalent in night photographs >containing very
bright man-made light sources in which the emulsion itself appears to flare
around bright and close light >sources; they need not be "pinpoint" in the
image.
I have noticed this, but don't fine it as bad as in the negative films.
Among those most vocal about this effect are those that routinely
photograph rail engines with their very bright headlamps.
I would like to hear the Troy's take on this. If you're reading "Grumpy's"
website, my best advice is, don't. He doesn't have a lot of respect among
the professional rail photo community.
>(2) Grain is only part of the story for "apparent sharpness."
>(long, well put explanation)
>- -- John
Excellent point, as Kodachrome is basically a multilayer B&W film, it is
quite sharp. It's just that sometimes the edges are obscured by the giant
waterspots and pieces of crud.
Then, Winsor commented:
>I am a big Velvia fan too and wish it was a little faster
There is a rumor/rumour out there that Fuji will announce the new Velvia 100
at Photokina.
>and I am really pleased with Provia 400F. It is an amazingly versatile
fast film that does not seem to sacrifice much for >the speed.
There seems to be a large contingent that prefers pushed 100 to 400. I can't
understand that.
>I am not really happy Provia F 100...there is a tendency to magenta in
shadows ...
But, Winsor, you don't understand. That's to make it look like Kodachrome.
>I have tried a few rolls of Agfa's 100 and it looks very promising. Grain
is not quite as fine as Fuji's, but not bad. Looks >very sharp and very
neutral and seems to handle bright or pastel colors well. You might try a
roll.
I haven't tried Agfa in a few years, and probably should again. I used to
use the old CT18 process 64 speed a lot, much better that the E4 Kodak
films. It had an unusual warm, almost earth-toned rendition for landscapes.
I will give it another chance, as soon as I make an order with B&H, as it is
apparently outlawed in Kansas.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|