> C.H.Ling wrote:
> >I have tried two rolls, the grain appear in one hour lab print not
> >scanning, it is the worse film I have ever used. I think over expose
> >it by one or two stops may be better, but I just made it dead right.
> >For ISO400, Kodak Supra 400 and Fuji Superia are much better.
>
> Weird, I guess. I shot my roll right at 400. No grain visible to my
> naked 20/10 eye on a 4x6 print. Were yours earlier versons?
http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/index.php?currDir=./balloon is some
shots of a ballooning trip I was on recently -- all shots on Kodak Gold 400,
processed at local minilab.
Grain -- on 4x6 shots, I can see grain in the sky in _one_ shot, where the
sky's a particular shade of light blue. I can't see any anywhere else. I
tried scanning at high res to see what I could get, but by the time I could
see anything, I was starting to suspect it was scanner noise/blue rather
than grain.
The (consumer-grade) Fuji 400 I've used previously was more like what C.H.
is describing; lots of grain visible even in the prints, which is why I
switched to Kodak. I'm not sure what this tells us, other than that there's
probably less consistency in film than we might want..
-- dan
< 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 >
|