Re: [gardeners] Fuji vs. Kodak was Re: blue flower photos
drusus@golden.net (gardeners@globalgarden.com)
Sun, 03 May 1998 08:09:27 -0400
At 09:50 PM 02-05-98, George Shirley wrote:
>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
George, that could as easily been good developing as the film. I have had
some variety in color from roll to roll of the same stuff.
Sakura probably isn't allowed into north America because it would kill off
Kidak et al.'s market.
Lucinda
>
>