Re: [gardeners] Fuji vs. Kodak was Re: blue flower photos
drusus@golden.net (gardeners@globalgarden.com)
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:
snip>
>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.
Lucinda
>
>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 kay@fern.com
>just back from a 70 mi train ride on a freight line in antique
>passenger railcars. :-)
>
>
>
>