Kodak's "High Definition" colour film?

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Phred, Aug 27, 2005.

  1. Phred

    Phred Guest

    G'day mates,

    Sorry to hark back to *film* in this high tech group, but...

    I noticed that our local supermarket (Coles, if you must know :) is
    currently selling 4-packs of 24 exposure Kodak High Definition film
    for about $17.00 (versus about $14.00 for 3-packs of ASA 200).
    I had to search the packaging pretty carefully to finally discover the
    HD film is also rated ASA 200.

    So my question is: Has anyone here used this HD film, and what were
    the results like? (The advertising blurb on the packaging implies it
    will do whatever can be done with the full range of "normal" film
    types from ASA 100 to ASA 400, and then some! Sceptics would like
    some confirmation of these apparently extravagent claims!)

    Thanks for your time.

    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Aug 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Phred

    Justin Thyme Guest

    IME, Kodak HD does a wonderful job of capturing off-colour, flat, dull,
    boring, grainy photographs, marginally worse than Kodak Gold. Fuji's
    equivalent offering is clearly superior (perhaps why they call it Superia).
     
    Justin Thyme, Aug 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Phred

    Fred At Home Guest

    Colour neg film has always had very wide exposure latitude as it can be
    "fixed" in the photlab. So the blurb about the film covering 100-400 ASA is
    something to be yawned at. I wouldn't be surprised that this "High
    Definition" film is just the same ASA100/200 film you've been buying for
    years.
     
    Fred At Home, Aug 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Phred

    googlegroups Guest

    Not sure if it was a bad batch, but my lone experience with HD a couple
    of years ago was a horrible set of dark and grainy prints. I had a
    couple of reprints redone at another lab to eliminate the possibility
    of a printing problem - but they came back the same. It's possible it
    was a processing problem but I didn't bother pressing any further.
    Luckily it WAS a test roll to see how well the film performed! I threw
    out the other two rolls in the pack.
     
    googlegroups, Aug 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Phred

    Phred Guest

    From what you and others have said, it sounds like this is another
    example of the marketing getting ahead of the technology.
    (How unlike modern Kodak. :)

    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Aug 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Phred

    kosh Guest

    from printing it iin a lab it is pretty bad as well. I have seen many a
    wonderful shot ruined by poor film !

    Actually a few rolls come in the other day from the disposables at the
    reject shop. Major gouges out of parts of the emulsion..... irrecular
    emulsion layers... I just about shut down our processor, but realised it
    was only the reject shop film coming out like crap!
     
    kosh, Sep 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Phred

    Justin Thyme Guest

    I have seen horrors in Kodak film that aren't rejects too - had a roll of
    BW400 that had a long hair in the emulsion running the length of about 6
    frames. The frontier with it's scratch & dust removal did a wonderful job of
    getting almost acceptible results from it.
     
    Justin Thyme, Sep 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Phred

    Rob Guest

    That "long hair" was some of the emulsion off the edge of the film -
    normal would have washed off without a problem.
     
    Rob, Sep 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Phred

    Justin Thyme Guest

    Nope, most definitely a long human hair. It was mostly embedded in the
    emulsion except for a small spot where it looped out of the emulsion, so it
    would have been there when the film was manufactured.
     
    Justin Thyme, Sep 19, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.