At 14:48 10/28/00 , Lex Jenkins wrote:
>
>I had been using Kodachrome 64 for my petrified wood structure project, but
>was disappointed with the closeups. It just didn't deliver minute,
>glittering details as I wanted. Provia 100F solved that problem. The
>details are brilliant. Yet the film satisfies my desires for accuracy and
>vivid color. I could just as easily have been satisfied with Astia, but I'm
>going to standardize on Provia.
>
>For my money nothing beats Kodachrome for portraits and flowers. The colors
>are rich yet accurate. And unlike even the best print films, there's no
>haggling with the lab over how the prints *should* look. Just check the
>slides.
>-----------
>Lex Jenkins
Kodachrome 64 has always given me truer colors than Elitechrome 100. I'm
running less saturated Ektachrome 100 EPN now to see if I like it better
than the Elitechrome 100. If that doesn't suit me, then maybe the Provia F
or Astia will. Kodachrome 64 on the OM bodies with the faster Zuiko's
isn't normally a problem. On the other bodies with f/2.8 lenses it has
been and 2/3 stop faster at ISO 100 with an E-6 film often makes the
difference.
BTW, the Kodak pro/consumer transparency equivalents are:
E100S = Elitechrome 100
E100VS = Elitechrome 100 Extra Color
E200 = Elitechrome 200
EPL-400 = Elitechrome 400
I have yet to find an ISO 400 E-6 that isn't grainy; Kodachrome 200 falls
into the grainy category too.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|