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
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
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
>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 pu
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
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 i
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
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
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 S
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
> 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 s
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
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
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
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 t
- 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 100-40
> 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
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 t
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
>
>
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 seem
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
>picture
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.
Re
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 <[E
23 matches
Mail list logo
