Steve, I have just seen proofs. Keep in mind that these are different films. I use them for different purposes. The Konica does very well in bright light and stronger contrast. The Agfa Ultra is new for me. I used to shoot the old Ultra 50. That film was punchy and did best in diffused light. My PUG submission for the coming month was shot on Agfa Ultra.
I am a firm believer in multiple film types for proper situations. I guess I don't have a single favorite. Konica Impressa 50 for scenics in good light. Agfa Ultra or Optima for scenics in more diffused light. Portra 160NC for people. Reala as the most general purpose - pretty good on scenics, relatively low contrast and decent skin tones. Bruce Friday, March 28, 2003, 10:17:58 AM, you wrote: SP> Bruce: SP> I have not tried either the Agfa or Konica films you SP> mentioned. I assume you have seen the prints by now. SP> Which film did you like the best? SP> Thanks again for the info! SP> --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Steve, >> >> Let's see...this was to be more of a pleasure trip >> than a photo >> outing. Coupled with my wife having her ankle in an >> air cast (walking >> variety) that limited our plans somewhat. I only >> took an MX plus full >> arsenal of lenses (no zooms other than fisheye) and >> the Coolpix 990. >> In our short time, I only shot about 6 rolls of film >> but had a great >> time. >> >> So I took more than enough film. I took Agfa Ultra >> 100, Agfa Optima >> Prestige (both 100 and 400 speed), Konica Impressa >> 50 and 2 rolls of >> Provia 100F. Only shot 1 roll of 400 Optima - the >> rest was either >> Ultra or Konica Impressa. Plenty of light over >> there especially when >> using 2.8 or faster primes. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 3:35:26 PM, you wrote: >> >> SP> Thanks Bruce for the info. I'm curious, what >> other >> SP> films did you shoot, and how much did you bring? >> >> SP> Maybe some Velvia? >> >> SP> Thanks again, >> SP> Steve >> >> >> SP> --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I just got back from Hawaii - flew from San >> >> Francisco to Maui. I >> >> didn't take anything faster than 400 speed and >> just >> >> let it go through >> >> the x-ray with my camera - this is the carry on >> >> scanners. I had no >> >> ill effects for the two scans that occurred. >> Hand >> >> checking could be a >> >> bit iffy and time consuming. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 10:23:29 AM, you >> wrote: >> >> >> >> BR> I would treat the film like any other 400 >> film. >> >> I haven't flown since >> >> BR> security has gotten tighter. I would prefer a >> >> hand inspection. Just >> >> BR> don't put it in checked luggage. I don't >> worry >> >> about keeping print film >> >> BR> refrigerated unless it's going to be weeks at >> >> high temps. >> >> >> >> BR> BR >> >> >> >> BR> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >> >>A few more questions about Kodak Portra UC400. >> >> >> >> >> >>1. Is it safe to send thru the x-ray machines >> at >> >> >>airports? I have 2 trips planned over the next >> >> few >> >> >>months (Hawaii & Orlando), and I'm giving >> serious >> >> >>thought to using this film exclusively. I >> might >> >> order >> >> >>a few packs! >> >> >> >> >> >>2. Based on these locations, is keeping the >> film >> >> >>refrigerated an issue? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> SP> >> __________________________________________________ >> SP> Do you Yahoo!? >> SP> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, >> live on your desktop! >> SP> http://platinum.yahoo.com >> >> SP> __________________________________________________ SP> Do you Yahoo!? SP> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! SP> http://platinum.yahoo.com
