Re: [gardeners] Fuji vs. Kodak was Re: blue flower photos (
Sun, 03 May 1998 08:22:06 -0400

At 08:51 PM 02-05-98 -0700, Kay Lancaster wrote:
>On Sat, 2 May 1998, George Shirley wrote:
>Konica films are pretty well known for standing up to mixed color temp.
>light sources and still looking good.  I just don't use them because I
>have a hard time finding Konica pro.  I went to Fuji just before a big
>trip to Britain (overcast skies, primarily interested in flowers instead
>of skin tones) when Kodak doubled the cost on Ektachrome pro.  We had a
>side-by-side slide showing later of Kodak Ektachrome, Kodachrome pro, and
>Fujichrome pro -- same subjects, same time, different cameras -- and we
>unanimously thought the Fujichrome slides had more punch.  YMMV. 
>Remember, when you're doing *prints* instead of slides, they can change
>the filtration packs and give you better results sometimes.  Or there's
>always Adobe photoshop.  ;-) 

Or Corel.  I have resurrected some of my best (and fading) anciient slides.  

Ektachrome is notorious among my archaeology buddies and being a dud.  Dull
colour, doesn't last more than about 10 years.  That being said I am still
showing some of the stuff I took in Italy 25 years ago and it looks great.
Other rolls bit the biscuit.


>BTW, one of the major differences between the "pro" and "amateur" films
>is that the pro films are sent out when the color balance is closest
>to natural.  They need to be kept refrigerated before and after use,
>and processed by a good lab.  Amateur films are designed to sit on
>the shelf at room temp, but show a distinct difference in color rendition
>between films close to their expiration date and "fresh~ film.
>Kay Lancaster
>just back from a 70 mi train ride on a freight line in antique
>passenger railcars.  :-)