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

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.