Really?? I shot some Kodak, hated it. I find the Fuji Superia 400 to
be finer grained then Kodak 200 Gold; the 400 gold just is very grainy
to me.
I have tried to shoot more Reala now... That stuff is grainless and
what I have discovered is that for portraits, it's perfect! Great color
rendering, skin comes out the correct color (vs superia, which is a bit
redish on the skintones to me) and the extra 2 stops shorter means a
larger aperture, which gives me a shallower DOF which is what I wanted
in a portrait shot anyway..
When I shoot my longer lens; and in low light; I have to take a shot at
something like 1/60th at f2.5 (on my Tokina 90mm/f2.5) to get good
lighting without the need for flash.. well, if I get a little camera
shake, and the picture comes out a bit soft; for portraits, the subjects
actually like it better...
But I'm able to hold 1/60th more steady now, and so I still get pretty
razor sharp pics even at that slow of a shutter speed... I love my
Tokina lens... it's awesome..
Try Reala, it's just good stuff... For those balloon shots, I would
have loved to see them on Fuji Provia 100.. That would have rocked..
Albert
Daniel J. Mitchell wrote:
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 >
< 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 >
|