At 00:20 4/12/02, you wrote:
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
Did you closely compare the the characteristic curves? Try overlaying one
set of curves over the other (if you can copy the images out of the
PDF). I plotted not only points at which the curve cross the grid lines,
but the curve shapes between them also.
The *set* of characteristic curves defines what the resultant image will be
on film. How it's printed, the machine(s) used, who does it (machine
operator), and the material it's printed on will make a difference in what
a *print* resulting from a negative looks like. I know that all too well
in having color negatives printed by consumer and pro labs. The curves and
other data for these two films track more closely than *any* other pair of
consumer and pro films made by Kodak *known* to be the consumer and pro
versions (e.g. Elitechrome 100 and E100S).
I wouldn't have asserted their "sameness" otherwise. To me it's
undeniable. It's also entirely credible to _me_ that Kodak's marketdroids
*would* do exactly this to sell the film to those who *only* buy pro
films. The difference between them would be the batch controls (with lot
numbers) and "aging" process conducted with pro films so they are shipped
at peak, if they're even doing that with this film. It is _definitely_not_
one of the Portra films!
BTW, I didn't think it was sold in the U.S. but only to certain overseas
markets.
-- 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 >
|