I don't know, but as this subject is entirely subjective I'll add a word or
two.
This summer I used a wide range of Fuji film in Spain. I hauled a load of
Fujicolor Press (1600), Reala and Superia (100) and NPC (160) and NHG II
(800 Professional--I picked this lot up from Henry's, by the way, and the
service was excellent) over with me in X-Ray bags (I wasn't sure what the
supply would be like over there--it's never as good as what we have here, I
can tell you that) and then bought some more Superia X-TRA (400) and
Superia (200) while over there, and (except for my gaffes) all of the
exposures turned out as I would have expected. I have one particular shot
(not scanned yet, but I'd like to submit it to Olaf's TOPE 7 so I'm working
on that) of a street mime done up in silver paint and a cowboy hat where
both color and contrast are fairly stunning. (Didn't take notes for that
one, didn't take notes my entire vacation, but as I recall that's on
regular ol' Fuji 400 film, probably the stuff I bought locally from a shop
in the old part of the town, shot through my 100mm f2.)
Now keep in mind I compare these results from the Fuji stock to what I
managed from the Kodak emulsions I also took with (not counting Tri-X and
TMax, this would include Kodak Gold 100 and 1000, Supra NC 400 and Portra
VC 400), plus ten rolls of Konica Impresa 50 Professional. Come to think of
it, I think there's some Kodak Max 400 in there as well.
That's a pretty rich mix, I'm sure you'd agree. Three brands, speed ranges
from slowest to fastest, yet no obviously bad colors.
Maybe my eyes just aren't up to it and I can't tell the difference, maybe I
just have unusually good luck with film or dismally low standards or what
have you, but my gut feeling is most talk about this film or that as being
the best emulsion is no more than that. One thing's for sure: now way
anyone's gonna remember colorations from a fleeting scene a week down the
road, and for that matter what everyone sees to begin with is unique so
right away nobody's on the exact same page, so where do start our
comparisons from? Tests might be constructed, have been, but soon enough
you're right back into subjective comparison and so no further down the
road. Besides, to be closely controlled the tests at issue are rarely
conducted in the field, and that's the only place that matters.
Do different film emulsions give identical images? Of course not. But
what's "correct" strikes me as something else altogether. To Say this film
or that is of definite higher quality is iffy at best. I think some
are--logic suggests they aren't all the same--but much of this variation
probably has more to do with quality control and ageing from one film batch
to the next as anything.
Speaking only for myself, I think Kodak makes film emulsions as good as you
can buy anywhere, but when I want the "best" negative image (and
circumstances allow) I habitually turn to the Konica, but if I imagined I
could get as good or better an image from something else I'd change that
behavior in a heartbeat. Even there, though, I don't tout the Konica 50 as
"best" negative film. If this weren't being argued here I'd have nothing to
say on the subject. Indeed, if someone comes back to me now and says he has
a better fine-grain print film for me to try I'll charge out and buy some
of it and see for myself. My only loyalty's to the resultant image.
As for transparencies: I'm totally (or nearly so) ignorant of that side of
the art, so I'll defer.
Tris
Are you sure it's a Fuji film? :)
Probably a cheap shot, but it sums up how I feel about Fuji's current
films. I will
definitely have to give the Provia a try as it sounds like something I
would really
like. Thanks for the information Chris.
"Christopher L. Tabby" wrote:
> Provia 100F is definitely not garish. It is quite restrained and
> delicate. I will not shoot anything else for colour in that speed
> range.>
> Chris T.
|