I like Kodak Gold 100 and it's a fine film to work
with as it has very pleasing tones without much grain
and good latitude. Personally I don't like any of the
other Gold films though. 200 seems to trade a lot of
grain for that 1 stop and any 400/800 I've ever
developed has had really ugly grain (IMHO) in the
shadows. For the past year I've been using Portra
160NC and 3 rolls of kodachrome 64. The Portra is
wonderful! Very fine film with great tones, absolutely
enormous latitude, just a film that makes a great
photo. The Kodachrome is even better when it comes out
right, but it's a whole lot more finicky and it's
tough to make a good print off of it. Of course this
is just IMHO.
Mark Lloyd
--- Tris Schuler <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|