In a message dated 1/16/01 2:08:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Comparing an FA 50mm 1.4 to an FD 50mm 1.8....
Date: 1/16/01 2:08:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dosk)
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?<<
I think Fuji makes great film. But for your purposes, the built-in film
contrast may have skewed the results. I was only suggesting that a medium
contrast print film would be more sublte, let you see the real resolving
power of both lenses.
>>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?<<
When it was readily avaialbe, I shot EKTAPRESS films almost exclusively,
inlarge part because of its latitude but more because of its ability to
render the skin of poeple of color more naturally. In addition, EKTAPRESS did
wonders in suppressing specular highlights on dark skin.
KODAK SUPRA, the worthy inheritor of its EKTAPRESS genes, has proven to be a
superb film for rendering shadows. Not only that, SUPRA beat EKTAPRESS'
record as an extremely well behaved film when scanned.
>>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...<<
To be sure I'd havw some EKTAPRESS, while I was in New York (24 days, five
day trips to B&H heaven).
I bought all they had (or said they had) and laid in a comfortalbve supply of
SUPRA 100 & 800, a little Portra 160 VC (another film you might give a try)
and a host of gagdgets only B&H has.
It can't hurt to experiment with film or lenses. AS I read your first post on
this, I took pity on the Canon because they iss no way it was going to beat
the 50 f/1.4.
>> (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...)<<
REading is fun and addictive. Maic Lantern is a "refresher" tome. I read it
to remind me of my shrinking but still numerous faults when shooting.
>>Thanks for responding,
Skip<<
Be well,
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- 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.
