Re: [gardeners] Fuji vs. Kodak was Re: blue flower photos
George Shirley (gardeners@globalgarden.com)
Sat, 02 May 1998 21:50:46
At 10:10 PM 5/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 12:00 AM 29-04-98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>in the front of the house. They are actually small-leaf rhododendrons,
>>>(which of course look like azaleas) but the color is neon blue...! They
>>>absolutely SHOUT at you ..... In the past, all my efforts at photo-
>>>graphing both these Starry Night rhodies and my many blue summer
>>
>>Blue flowers rarely photograph well without special filtration. The
>>best results I've gotten are from photos taken in open shade, or with
>>Kodak Gold film, which has remarkably good blue flower color rendition.
>>
>>For general flower photography, however, I prefer Fuji's color films,
>>because they tend to produce more "saturated" colors, while Kodak's
>>films tend to produce more pastel versions.
>
>Fuji seems to emphasize the reds........for example, if you have an iron
>content soil it is going to show up sometimes mighty prominently.
>Saturated is I guess what you could call it.....
>
>I have better luck with Kodak Gold in these parts (lots of iron).
>
>Lucinda
>
>>
>>Kay Lancaster kay@fern.com
>>
>>
The best color photos of my life were made with Sakura film. I've never
seen it in the States but used to buy it in Saudi Arabia. Often wish I had
frozen a case of it to bring home. The pinks were pink, the blues were
blue, almost total realistic color in just your ordinary hopped Canon AE-1
with everything manual. I shot some lotus blossoms in Thailand that look
absolutely the same color in the photo as in life.
George