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
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
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 pro
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
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 PR
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 measuremen
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 lo
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 consu
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 sp
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.
10 matches
Mail list logo
