At 12:42 12/31/01, Albert wrote:
First, my color was much more neutral... Shooting asians with kodak is not
that great, everybody turns out more brown and yellow than they should.
Second, mine was a LOT (Let me repeat) a LOT sharper. Her's from an AF
didn't look that focused. You can't tell from her pictures... UNTIL you
put mine next to hers. Same shot, we stood side by side... My mom's
friends just asked for reprints, and they picked mine over hers...
Mine was in focus, and was just razor sharp. Her's looked sharp, until
people saw mine, then her's looked a bit soft and blurry.. While AF is very
convient... I have to admit that part... But when it's all said and done,
AF cannot focus as well as an MF. I was not sure about that (as the
THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS) of C*non and N*kon commercials and ads tell me
otherwise... which contradict what I read on the internet... but now that
I had proof in my hot little hands...
Albert.
There are quite a number of possible reasons for the differences in
addition to the AF system starting with the lenses used and continuing
through the lab that made the prints. Look at a finished print as the
entire process starting with what you see in the viewfinder to what the
printing machine does with color balancing and enlarger lenses. A print is
a photograph of the piece of film and all the screwups that can occur in
making the piece of film have an equivalent one that can occur when making
a print from it.
[begin film selection rant]
As an aside, I'm very surprised a pro wedding photographer would be using
Kodak Gold 200! IMO this is a "cheap-out" by the photographer to save
money on film at the expense of the client. It can be bought in bulk at a
Sam's Club for near nothing. Kodak uses a funky "print grain index" to
rate resolving power of their color negative films; everyone else uses
diffuse RMS granularity index. Even so Kodak Gold 200 has a PGI of 47 for
4x6 prints (4.4X enlargement).
Kodak's documentation about their PGI states that an index of 25 is the
threshold of visible granularity in a print for 900f viewers at its
"average" viewing distance (distance varies by print size; Kodak uses 14
inches for a 4x6). By comparison, and this isn't a direct one to the Fuji
NPH you used, Portra 160NC has a PGI of 30 (only 1/3 stop slower), Portra
400NC has a PGI of 41, and Portra 800's PGI is 50. [All 4x6 print; 4.4X
magnification.] In short, the Gold 200 she was using is nearly as grainy
as a professional ISO 800 film. Not too surprising that just on film
selection you have sharper prints. The Fuji NPH [ISO 400] you used is at
least as fine grained as Portra 400NC, and would produce visibly sharper
prints compared to Kodak Gold 200 given equal processing and printing. [If
she "cheaped out" by using Gold 200, I am left wondering if she also
"cheaped out" by using a consumer lab.]
Conclusion? IMO, the professional wedding photographer *should* have been
using Fuji NPS, Kodak Portra 160 (NC or VC), or Agfa Portrait 160!! Beyond
the film's MTF (acuity or resolution), there are also a host of other
reasons having to do with film latitude, saturation and color
neutrality. IMO you selected a "better" film for the task than she did and
your distinct advantage began with film selection before it ever got loaded
into a camera body. Better, of course, is always a subjective
judgement. I could rant more about a professional using 35mm format
exclusively for a wedding, but that one is more debatable and this one is
long enough already.
[end film selection rant]
-- 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 >
|