Re: [gardeners] Fuji vs. Kodak was Re: blue flower photos

George Shirley (
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).
>>Kay Lancaster
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.