Hi Mafud:
I think you are pretty much on target with your observations
regarding the difference between Fuji and Kodak films. Let me go
to some depth with my observations as a photofinisher.
Fuji as a family has better neutrality than Kodak at the
moment. There is a lot of green in the world, Fuji handle it
better. This is at the expense of flesh tones, which Kodak
(generally) handles better.
Kodak's warmth is what allows it to be better at flesh
tones, which are made up of warm colours.
I wouldn't think of Fuji as being an enhanced film by your
definition, my observations as a lab guy contradict this too
strongly. Kodak definitely enhances flesh tones, but otherwise
they are about equal in most respects.
Where we are seeing differences is the gamma by speed. Both
Kodak and Fuji consumer films have made the 100 speed films the
punchiest, 200 speed is the low contrast stuff, and 400 is the
normal contrast. Fuji's 800 is about the same gamma as the Fuji
400, and is a far better film than the present Max 800 (gen 2).
I have seen some samples of Max 800 type 3 and Max 400 type 7,
and both are much improved. This is a good thing, as the present
stuff is below the standard I have come to expect from Kodak.
When you say enhanced, I think contrast and saturation.
Kodak Gold 100 is clearly the winner here. With the exception of
Agfa Ultra, Gold 100 is the brightest print film I have seen.
Superia 100 is not far behind.
Depending on the Portra you are talking about, I would put
the HC stuff in the slightly lower than medium contrast range,
somewhat flatter than Gold 200, and NC in the lower than normal
range. NC is about the same gamma as NPS, but looks flatter in
prints. My favourite is 160HC.
I would give Supra a wider range than you do. Six stops is well
within it's latitude. The NC may well have the widest latitude
of any colour film going. I suspect 9 stops is not out of the
question. It is quite remarkable film.
From what I read of Skip's post, I am wondering if veiling
flare might not have been the culprit in his results. I wish he
had shot at the same shutter speed aperture combination with
both cameras, rather than letting the meters sort things out.
William Robb
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Comparing an FA 50mm 1.4 to an FD 50mm 1.8....
> In a message dated 1/16/01 3:13:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Perhaps a more technical explanation from him is in order.
>>
>
> "Enhanced" in that Fuji generally formulates their films (and
I can't speak
> for *all* Fuji film since I don't shoot Fuji unless the
clients insists), to
> enhance greens. Fuji film, on the Gamma correction scale, is
"cool," hewing
> more to the Europeans standard while KODAK leans toward
"warm," the American
> standard.
> Some photographers and marketers use "enhanced" and
"saturated"
> interchangeably.
>
> I suggested Portra because it *is* a medium contrast film, as
is Supra,
> neither of which can be considered "saturated" or "enhanced"
films. Both
> films will dig out shadow details and tones most films might
miss.
>
> A lens incapable of rendering shadow detail will be exposed
for its
> shortcomings when shooting PORTRA or EKTAPRESS. Couple that
lens with a film
> incapable of reproducing shadow detail and you have a hard
time making
> decisions as to the capabilities of the lens.
> SUPRA 800 is superb in shots with a 3 to 4 stop difference in
the viewfinder,
> shots most slide films can't touch.
>
> Mafud
-
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.
