Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Is that what it's called? A print film? keith whaley Steve Pearson wrote: > > Guys at my local camera store say this is a fairly new > film, that is very good. Bought a 3 pack to try it, > instead of the Portra 400VC. Anyone out there tried > this new "High Defintion" film yet? If so, how did > you like the results, and what ISO did you use?
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Yes, it is a print film. Yes, it is now labeled as "High Defintion". I think it is just Royal Gold re-named... --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is that what it's called? > A print film? > > keith whaley > > Steve Pearson wrote: > > > > Guys at my local camera store say this is a fairly > new > > film, that is very good. Bought a 3 pack to try > it, > > instead of the Portra 400VC. Anyone out there > tried > > this new "High Defintion" film yet? If so, how > did > > you like the results, and what ISO did you use? > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Kodak seemed to have the habit of keep relabeling their films. regards, Alan Chan Yes, it is a print film. Yes, it is now labeled as "High Defintion". I think it is just Royal Gold re-named... _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
The first 5 shots here: http://home.att.net/~b_rubenstein/Fred/index.html were done with UC. The rest are Fuji 400. I'm not sure what you can tell by looking at smallish files on a monitor. Prints done on Royal Kodak paper look really good. The film has the same PGI as VC160 which is lower than the other 400 Portra films. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce: Do you (or anyone else here on the list) have sample photos that I could look at, where you used Kodak Portra 400UC? I'm curious to see the colors, especially with skin tones. I have not shot it yet, and would appreciate a sneak peak before buying some. Thanks for the referral to Kodak-looks like a good deal to me!
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Thanks Bruce, the shots look good to me! JOOC, what does PGI stand for? Sorry I'm technically-challenged. Based on your comment, would you say that it shows similiar characteristics to the VC160, when you make enlargements? Thanks again for everyone's help! --- Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first 5 shots here: > http://home.att.net/~b_rubenstein/Fred/index.html > were done with UC. The rest are Fuji 400. I'm not > sure what you can tell > by looking at smallish files on a monitor. Prints > done on Royal Kodak > paper look really good. The film has the same PGI as > VC160 which is > lower than the other 400 Portra films. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Bruce: > > > >Do you (or anyone else here on the list) have > sample > >photos that I could look at, where you used Kodak > >Portra 400UC? I'm curious to see the colors, > >especially with skin tones. I have not shot it > yet, > >and would appreciate a sneak peak before buying > some. > > > >Thanks for the referral to Kodak-looks like a good > >deal to me! > > > > > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Steve Pearson wrote: JOOC, what does PGI stand for? "Print Graininess Index". Kodak observed that their films compare bad with other manufacturers when the grain is measured using the standard "RMS" method. So they decided to stop publishing RMS data and replace it with their own PGI measurement. Nobody knows how this PGI relates to RMS. So you can't anymore compare Kodak data with other manufacturers data. See ? Problems have simple solutions. cheers, caveman
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
PGI = Print Grain Index It's Kodak's system for evaluating film grain. The grain is the same for UC400 and VC160. Other characteristics such as saturation and contrast may be different. You can look at the data sheets on the Kodak site. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Bruce, the shots look good to me! JOOC, what does PGI stand for? Sorry I'm technically-challenged. Based on your comment, would you say that it shows similiar characteristics to the VC160, when you make enlargements? Thanks again for everyone's help! --- Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The first 5 shots here: http://home.att.net/~b_rubenstein/Fred/index.html were done with UC. The rest are Fuji 400. I'm not sure what you can tell by looking at smallish files on a monitor. Prints done on Royal Kodak paper look really good. The film has the same PGI as VC160 which is lower than the other 400 Portra films. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce: Do you (or anyone else here on the list) have sample photos that I could look at, where you used Kodak Portra 400UC? I'm curious to see the colors, especially with skin tones. I have not shot it yet, and would appreciate a sneak peak before buying some. Thanks for the referral to Kodak-looks like a good deal to me! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
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? >> >> >> >>
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
Thanks Bruce for the info. I'm curious, what other films did you shoot, and how much did you bring? Maybe some Velvia? Thanks again, Steve --- 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? > >> > >> > >> > >> > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Kodak "High Definition" 400 speed film?
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
