Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Sure, sometimes I get blur, but usually I get pretty sharp pictures even when I'm taking slow pictures, as long as the subject isn't moving ;) and if I do get it a bit blurry most of the time it's in a picture where I don't mind. My camera only takes pictures down to 1s, but I usually don't go that slow. Here's a picture taken at ½s that isn't too bad. http://picasaweb.google.com/rg2pdml/PESO/photo?authkey=W1C-i05p28o#5116002907034854178 For me, it's hard not to shift my hands when I press the shutter button. It probably goes back to that you should use a tripod argument. I used to use 800 speed kodak exclusively but I guess I was never quite satisfied with the sharpness so I ended up trying to take my pictures slower. I haven't tried 800 Fuji of any type, but your approval of it makes me curious. Do you have a steady hand? Or do you have a fast lens? I hope your bath picture comes out well :) rg2 On 9/29/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Thanks, Glen On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Close enough to Kodak that I buy whatever's cheaper where I am. Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Thank you for your kind words. I hope the picture of my little red head is satisfactory. She gave a nice little smile. I tend to have a fairly steady hand. When I shoot, I try to concentrate on cradling the body properly and exhaling when I release the shutter. Also, I think my hand is a bit steadier with the Nikon N80, as it is a much heavier, studier body than the ZX-M. It has a noticeably lower center of gravity, and a better grip, too--I feel like some sort of pseudo-pro now :-) I am not one who thinks photography is all in the lens. Certainly the lens is crucial, but so is the body. You ask: Do you have a fast lens?...my Pentax A is a 50/2 and my Nikon is an F 50/1.8 D...pretty fast... Yes, the Fuji 800 is nice. I have the 400 in my camera right now. I will pass along some comments one I have a roll or two developed. Glen On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Rebekah wrote: Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Sure, sometimes I get blur, but usually I get pretty sharp pictures even when I'm taking slow pictures, as long as the subject isn't moving ;) and if I do get it a bit blurry most of the time it's in a picture where I don't mind. My camera only takes pictures down to 1s, but I usually don't go that slow. Here's a picture taken at ½s that isn't too bad. http://picasaweb.google.com/rg2pdml/PESO/photo?authkey=W1C- i05p28o#5116002907034854178 For me, it's hard not to shift my hands when I press the shutter button. It probably goes back to that you should use a tripod argument. I used to use 800 speed kodak exclusively but I guess I was never quite satisfied with the sharpness so I ended up trying to take my pictures slower. I haven't tried 800 Fuji of any type, but your approval of it makes me curious. Do you have a steady hand? Or do you have a fast lens? I hope your bath picture comes out well :) rg2 On 9/29/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Thanks, Glen On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Har! My medalist is older than that, in fact it's older than I am. graywolf wrote: I used to keep Fuji Superia in 100, 400, and 1600 speed in my camera bag. I have always preferred to use the slowest film I could get away with. For slides my favorite was Agfa Provdia (sp?) 100. Since I quite often had partial rolls developed I only bought 24x roll. Fugi Press was supposedly Superia in bulk packs of 36x rolls. Nowadays I only shoot 35mm film when I need to use the long lenses in my MX kit most (90%) color stuff is shot with the Olympus C-5050Z digicam. Yes even with digital I use old* cameras GRIN! *That is only partially by choice. However between the Oly, the MX kit, and the Graphic I can shoot most anything I care to shoot, so it is not a great hardship for me. The latest and greatest are mostly needed for bragging rights, but if your kit is old enough you get reverse bragging rights. That Graphic was made in 1952! -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
I used to keep Fuji Superia in 100, 400, and 1600 speed in my camera bag. I have always preferred to use the slowest film I could get away with. For slides my favorite was Agfa Provdia (sp?) 100. Since I quite often had partial rolls developed I only bought 24x roll. Fugi Press was supposedly Superia in bulk packs of 36x rolls. Nowadays I only shoot 35mm film when I need to use the long lenses in my MX kit most (90%) color stuff is shot with the Olympus C-5050Z digicam. Yes even with digital I use old* cameras GRIN! *That is only partially by choice. However between the Oly, the MX kit, and the Graphic I can shoot most anything I care to shoot, so it is not a great hardship for me. The latest and greatest are mostly needed for bragging rights, but if your kit is old enough you get reverse bragging rights. That Graphic was made in 1952! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Fuji or Kodak?
When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Thanks, Glen On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
It depends on what I'm taking pictures of. If I'm going to go take pictures outside, I like fuji, it's greens are fantastic. But, kodak has great reds. I try to stay away from 800 speed because I don't like the grain, and I prefer 200 or 400 in either brand. rg2 On 9/28/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
On 9/28/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Regular old Kodak Gold 100 and 200 are pretty darned nice films. I've done 8x10 blowups from gold 200 with no visible grain. I also like Fuji Superia Reala, though that probably counts as a pro film. -Mat -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
What is film?? Seriously, I stick with Fuji Superia 400. Good saturated colours and it holds up well under artificial light. The grain really shows up when you scan it, though. At 6:24 PM -0400 9/28/07, Rebekah wrote: It depends on what I'm taking pictures of. If I'm going to go take pictures outside, I like fuji, it's greens are fantastic. But, kodak has great reds. I try to stay away from 800 speed because I don't like the grain, and I prefer 200 or 400 in either brand. rg2 On 9/28/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Fuji or Kodak?
Lost it the 1st time I think... Fuji used to (still may), generally, have a slight edge in resolution and grain. I prefer a 100 speed film and tripod, over a higher ISO film, unless circumstances dictate not using a tripod. Fuji Reala, costs more and available only at Photo stores, always seemed to produce superior results. Otherwise, I still preferred Fuji Superia to Kodak Gold (who knows what they're called now). Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Fuji or Kodak? Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:05:31 -0400 Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen Hey, Glen. I really like Fuji Reala 100. BH carries the gray market stuff for 2.69/36 exposure roll. The Fuji Superia 800 is wonderful film. It scans well, has a reasonable amount of grain (but I like more grain than most people) for an 800 speed film, and the only difference between it and Press 800 is that Press is considered a pro film. I can't tell any visual difference between them. As for 400, Kodak makes Ultra Color, which is nicely saturated but doesn't throw off skin tones. It used to be really easy to find at places like Wal-Mart and Target, but they don't tend to carry it anymore. If you're looking to shoot C-41 black and white, check out Ilford XP-2. To me, it has a more traditional silver look to than the Kodak equivalent. But if you really want to have some fun get yourself some dev tanks, a few rolls of Tri-X, and process it yourself. Wh! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
I shot Kodak Gold for a number of years. When the Rapid Photo lab was still running here in town, the owner talked me into Reala. I was hooked, and shot that till i bought the D2H in Feb 2004 and that was it for colour film other than some 6x7 trannies. The Reala seemed to have more punch than the Gold when looking at them. Dave On 9/28/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lost it the 1st time I think... Fuji used to (still may), generally, have a slight edge in resolution and grain. I prefer a 100 speed film and tripod, over a higher ISO film, unless circumstances dictate not using a tripod. Fuji Reala, costs more and available only at Photo stores, always seemed to produce superior results. Otherwise, I still preferred Fuji Superia to Kodak Gold (who knows what they're called now). Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Fuji or Kodak? Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:05:31 -0400 Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. In daytime, I like Agfa 100 or 400 but have trouble finding it; in particular weather with that deep blue sky I like Konica 100, which is, alas, as hard to find as Agfa. I'll settle for shooting Fuji 800. I don't care as much for Fuji or Kodak in the 100-400 range in colour (but oh how sweet Kodachrome 25 was, eh?) but Reala or Royal Gold will do in a pinch, when I've run out of the stuff I like better, but if I'm shooting Kodak in daylight I'd much rather it be Portra (or Tri-X, of course ... or HIE!). In evening, or with a long lens / fast action, gimme the Fuji 800 in general or, depending on the subject, Kodak pro films in the 800 range (I used to shoot Ektapress PJM, which seemed to be 640). Kindly keep the Kodak MAX away, thank you. Portra is okay. At night, TMZ is my very special friend, but Fuji Press (aka Superia X-Tra) 800 and 1600 come in handy as well, as does Delta 3200 (I use it more or less interchangeably with the TMZ) and Ecktachrome P1600 if I can find it (at which point I've left not only your implied context of colour but your stated context of print). So basically I like Tri-X/HP5, Agfa/Konica consumer colour films, or Kodak pro films in daylight, and switch to the T-grain BW (TMZ/Delta3200) and Fuji colour at night. Subject matters as well, but that depends as much on my mood at the moment as it does the particular category of subject, so it doesn't break down into a tidy rule-of-thumb like my time-of-day film choice habits do. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
- Original Message - From: Glen Tortorella Subject: Fuji or Kodak? Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. I'm a little out of the film processing loop, but for fully 15 years, Kodak Gold 200 had what I thought was the nicest colour outside the pro films, and franky it was pretty much on par with the pro films. Fuji 200 was also very nice, as was the 400, the difference being the 200 had slightly softer contrast. When I was shooting a lot of weddings, and processing a lot of flm at my lab, I actually settled on Fuji 200 amateur film as my wedding film. This was back in the 80s, but I as of a year ago, I'd still recommend it. Kodak Gold 100 (if its still available, I had heard rumors it was being phased out), had a really solid, punchy quality to it which was good for scenic photography, not as good for people photography. Fuji 100 was much the same, though it's colour rendidtion wasn't as nice. The Fuji films really didn't seem to be as good at reds, I always thought the reds were a little wishy washy and lacking in tonal seperation. I preferred Ektar 1000 to the fast Fuji film, althought the Fuji did have finer grain. I think it morphed into Royal 1000, and I don't know if it can still be had. It was quite sensitive to heat and age, IIRC. I think at this point the most important criteria for a film is going to be how well it scans over any other particular quality. I don't recall if I scanned the negative or print for this. http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
In non-pro form, Fuji is where it's at. The only Kodak print films's I'll shoot are the Portra's and 100/400UC, all of which are 'Pro' films. Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
I'm not surprised you're having problems finding Agfa or Konica films, both companies having been out of the film market for a year or more. -Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In daytime, I like Agfa 100 or 400 but have trouble finding it; in particular weather with that deep blue sky I like Konica 100, which is, alas, as hard to find as Agfa. I'll settle for shooting Fuji 800. I don't care as much for Fuji or Kodak in the 100-400 range in colour (but oh how sweet Kodachrome 25 was, eh?) but Reala or Royal Gold will do in a pinch, when I've run out of the stuff I like better, but if I'm shooting Kodak in daylight I'd much rather it be Portra (or Tri-X, of course ... or HIE!). In evening, or with a long lens / fast action, gimme the Fuji 800 in general or, depending on the subject, Kodak pro films in the 800 range (I used to shoot Ektapress PJM, which seemed to be 640). Kindly keep the Kodak MAX away, thank you. Portra is okay. At night, TMZ is my very special friend, but Fuji Press (aka Superia X-Tra) 800 and 1600 come in handy as well, as does Delta 3200 (I use it more or less interchangeably with the TMZ) and Ecktachrome P1600 if I can find it (at which point I've left not only your implied context of colour but your stated context of print). So basically I like Tri-X/HP5, Agfa/Konica consumer colour films, or Kodak pro films in daylight, and switch to the T-grain BW (TMZ/Delta3200) and Fuji colour at night. Subject matters as well, but that depends as much on my mood at the moment as it does the particular category of subject, so it doesn't break down into a tidy rule-of-thumb like my time-of-day film choice habits do. -- Glenn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Mark!! --- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if you really want to have some fun get yourself some dev tanks, a few rolls of Tri-X, and process it yourself. Wh! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
I agree, Adam. That Fuji Superia 800 is one fine 800 speed film. I just bought a five-pack of the Superia 400, and I expect it be nice, too. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Adam Maas wrote: In non-pro form, Fuji is where it's at. The only Kodak print films's I'll shoot are the Portra's and 100/400UC, all of which are 'Pro' films. Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen I tend to like the cheap fuji stuff better than the cheap kodak stuff, but it's been so long since I used cheap Kodak film they could have reformulated it. Evan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Note that Fuji sells Superia 800 as a pro film as well, called Press 800. It's the same stuff (in fact the only difference is the 'Pro' version is 36exp and the consumer 24) I'm very fond of that film, it's probably 50% or more of the colour 35mm I shoot. 400 is nice, but lacks the personality of the 800. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I agree, Adam. That Fuji Superia 800 is one fine 800 speed film. I just bought a five-pack of the Superia 400, and I expect it be nice, too. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Adam Maas wrote: In non-pro form, Fuji is where it's at. The only Kodak print films's I'll shoot are the Portra's and 100/400UC, all of which are 'Pro' films. Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
