There may well be precedent for this, and not too long ago there was a
thread on Photonet which claimed (second hand) that "someone" had "said" he
had information that the Fujipress emulsions (or at least the 800 stuff)
were the same as regular Superia emulsions only taken from the "middle" of
the runs.
For what it's worth, Kodak Gold has served me well, as have pretty much all
of the Kodak so-called consumer films over the years, including 400 MAX.
About the only emulsion I've a real issue with is TMax 3200, which strikes
me as something more than a little peculiar, given everything. I also
haven't had much luck with TMax 100 as yet, but that could nothing more
than a perceived shortcoming due to 1) my own inexpert application and 2)
my long-time bias for Tri-X when it comes to B&W shoots.
Tris
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 >
|