Sometimes based on the characteristic curves it is hard to tell, IMO
they are totally different, I have not use one, but many people here
tired the Pro Image 100 when it just came out and praise about it. It
was claimed to be a Portrait film. The Gold 100 is a cheap generally
purpose consumer film only. I don't think Kodak will make such joke
with us.
C.H.Ling
"John A. Lind" wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Don't know if you know this or not . . .
> Pro Image 100 is *identical* to Kodak Bright Sun Film (formerly known as
> Gold 100).
>
> Compare the last sections in the data sheets for the two films (shows
> characteristic curves and discusses image structure):
>
> Pro Image 100:
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4L/e4L.pdf
>
> Bright Sun Film (aka Gold 100):
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e2328/e2328.pdf
>
> I believe you will come to the same conclusion that two sets of tests were
> conducted for each one, but the results are so very, very, very close they
> are statistically very, very, very insignificant. IOW, manufacturing
> variation in emulsion lots, or perhaps a difference in aging, would easily
> account for it.
>
> Buy some "Bright Sun Film" that isn't quite brand new (that's aged about a
> year or about 12-18 months before expiration) so it isn't "green" [not
> quite ripened] and you get the same stuff.
>
> -- 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 >
|