In a message dated 8/26/01 2:50:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> The reason I used vc instead of nc in the 400 is because it
> was on sale. It seemed fine to me, but some have said to me they like nc
> better. I'm not that picky.
> I did use some flash, mostly because I was worried that the natural
> lighting would be too grainy, or too dark. So I duplicated some poses,
> by using both cameras, one with flash and one without. But that added to
> the confusion. Not sure I'd recommend it. Also I wanted to duplicate to
> better my chances of everyone having their eyes open, etc. As I've said
> before, I normally do only scenics, flowers, vacations, etc., stuff that
> doesn't matter if the film leader didn't quite get hooked on :-)
>
LOL I have the same problem with flowers that are never open when I want them
to be.:-) I know it is heresy but I like the VC better than the NC. I know
that Kodak says different...but my experience is otherwise. They are both
great films and price is a good reason to use one over the other. I do not
find portra400 grainy if properly exposed. As I have said, I have 20x30
prints from 35mm that are amazingly lacking in grain. Sometimes it is nice to
have some grain...I notice that there are now screens being sold to introduce
grain because there isn't enough in modern films...Sheesh!!!
Remember...KISS (keep is simple s----d).
Roger (who sometimes takes his own advice)
Roger Skully
robinsnestphotography.com
|