What on earth is Kodak thinking?

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by rob, Apr 29, 2004.

  1. rob

    Chris B Guest

    Yeah I buy that stuff, I'm careful with it and regularly manage to get 2 and
    sometimes even three whole shots out of it!
    ;)
     
    Chris B, Apr 30, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    Exactly how many multiple expsoures on one frame do you do now? ;-)
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 30, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. rob

    Chris B Guest

    As many as I can since I realised how cost-effective it can be!
    I just took out a roll of 1-frame 35mm I had in a camera for a month! I'm
    rubbing my hands with glee at the savings I'm gonna get at the lab with this
    little baby ;)

    Chris.
     
    Chris B, Apr 30, 2004
    #23
  4. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    Have you considered you might have multiple photographer personality disorder
    and have multiple fractured personalities allsharing the same camera? - now if
    you can get just one of those personalities to act as a patron and foot the
    bill you could go backto multiple photographer personality disorder using
    different cameras at the same time. Make sure that the other you with access to
    the bank account also does not have a spendaholic disorder or you might find
    yourself bankrupting, er.... yourselves ;-).
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 30, 2004
    #24
  5. rob

    Robert Lynch Guest

    Robert Lynch, Apr 30, 2004
    #25
  6. rob

    Robert Lynch Guest

    B&H lists 16 different options for 12 exposure color print film, though not
    all are regularly stocked.
     
    Robert Lynch, Apr 30, 2004
    #26
  7. I have; I'll post the reply if it's interesting enough.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Apr 30, 2004
    #27
  8. Unfortunately, medium-format film won't fit my 35mm cameras. It fits my
    medium-format cameras just fine, but that's a different story.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Apr 30, 2004
    #28
  9. You're quite welcome. The usability of Royal Gold 400 as a general-purpose
    film was my reason for posting in the first place.
    I've been pleased with Royal Gold 400, which I think is the same film. I
    haven't used it for portraits much, so I can't say as much about skin tones.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Apr 30, 2004
    #29
  10. rob

    Bowzer Guest

    Hmmm....

    I buy film locally, so I'll check again. If they're the same price, it would
    make sense, since I think they're the same film.
     
    Bowzer, Apr 30, 2004
    #30
  11. rob

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    That's what Kodak says, but I haven't heard of anybody actually using
    non-Portra 400UC yet.
    They're very different in my experience. HD 400 is about 20% grainier
    measured by PNG compression of 2400 dpi scans; skin tones and grays
    are worse than most colors. UC400 has about a stop more shadow speed.
    HD 400 is fairly high contrast, while UC400 is medium contrast (the
    difference is more in shadow contrast than in highlights). In my test
    roll, skin tones of HD 400 were about as grainy as Supra 800 @ 640.
    Good advice!
    The past few months I've been feeling sorry for Kodak. What's sadder
    than their film naming snafus is that they may have permanently lost
    the processing and printing market to the Fuji Frontier.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 30, 2004
    #31
  12. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    Hi Bill:

    In your opinions/experience(s), not just in Kodak PGI numbers/talk, how does
    Gold 200 compare with UC400 and HD400 in terms of graininess, contrast in
    highlights and shadows, color saturation, skin tones as well as general color
    rendition, sharpness, etc.

    TIA
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 30, 2004
    #32
  13. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Lewis Lang, Apr 30, 2004
    #33
  14. rob

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Good troll, Lewis!

    Gold 200 is possibly the greatest film ever made in the 20th or 21st century.
    It really can't be compared with anything else because it is so much better!
    It is so good that I am not worth to use it!!
     
    Bill Tuthill, May 2, 2004
    #34
  15. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    It wasn't meant as a troll Bill. I am just trying to settle on one film in the
    200/400 ISO range and I'm down to:

    Kodacolor 200

    Fujicolor 200

    HD 400

    UC 400

    Agfa VIsta 400

    I make large enlargements as was hoping to get your thoughts on
    sharpness/grain/contrast/color saturation/etc. for large prints up to 16x20".
    But if you don't want to answer that's your choice. No hard feelings.
     
    Lewis Lang, May 3, 2004
    #35
  16. rob

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Gold 200 is designed to produce bright colors with crummy cameras.
    Grain, expecially in blue sky, is easily visible in 8x12 enlargements,
    so 16x20 would be too much. Vista 400 also has quite grainy blues.

    It's a clear choice: UC 400 or NPH (why didn't you mention NPH?).
    HD 400 might be OK if you don't have people in your pictures.
    Superia 200 is quite good but not as smooth or consistent as UC 400.
     
    Bill Tuthill, May 3, 2004
    #36
  17. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    I can see the grain in 4x6" prints if I look hard in darker toned/storm clouded
    skies but I had no idea whether this would translate to very evident grain when
    blown up as large as 16x20".
    Thanks for the tip off.

    Vista 400 also has quite grainy blues.
    I usually expose 400 ISO film at E.I. 250, do you do the same? And would doing
    this (over exposing the ISO by + 2/3 stops) cut down the granularity in blue
    skies significantly enough in HD400/Superia 200/Kodacolor 200 etc.?
    I have no experience with it. Plus, based on Wilhelms past archival longevity
    tables I guess I would figure that Kodak's film would last longer than its Fuji
    equivalent (except for NPS, which I also haven't tried but is supposed to last
    a century in dark storage without fading).
    Why? What's worng with using HD400 for people?
    So UC 400 has smoother granularity but what about the size of the grains
    themselves - which would have smaller grain, the UC 400 or the Superia 200?

    Thanks and TIA
     
    Lewis Lang, May 3, 2004
    #37
  18. I think that you can safely rule out Kodacolor, as there there is no longer
    any such film.
     
    Andrew Koenig, May 4, 2004
    #38
  19. rob

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: What on earth is Kodak thinking?
    OK, have it your way, I'll take out Kodacolor 200 and put in KodaK Gold 200 in
    its place :).
     
    Lewis Lang, May 4, 2004
    #39
  20. rob

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    No, it doesn't seem worthwhile for most 400 speed films. Carefully comparing
    bracketing, there is usually no difference I can discern between 400 and 320,
    and only additional shadow detail (but no improvement in grain) at 250.
    At least in the 3-pack I bought, HD400 skin tones were very grainy,
    I'd say about the same as Supra 800 exposed at 640. BTW, I do expose
    most 800 speed films at 640.
    UC 400, definitely. Superia 200 costs less, though.
     
    Bill Tuthill, May 4, 2004
    #40
    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.