John, yes, I have used it in 135. It is an amazing film. I've posted it
before here, but it bears reposting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooroldpunch/5585800932/in/photostream This
shot was deliberately exposed at an EI of 800, then developed and scanned at
a drugstore.
A color neg film, underexposed by a stop, then developed at a 1 hour photo
place, should be a muddy mess, right? Nope, looks awesome, better than Fuji
800Z exposed at 800.
I hear that Portra 400 in 120 is even better?
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 21:26:07 -0300
> From: John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] New Kodak Portra 400
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <FB3C47172E88484F8B3276AD6F4B6D2D@hudson>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed;
> reply-type=original
>
> Does anyone have experience using the new Portra 400, in either 35mm or 120
> format, and has an opinion on the scanability of correctly exposed
> negatives?
>
> I picked up a pack of the 120 format film today. The photo store person
> told
> me that they have yet to receive the 35mm version and had no idea if, or
> when, it would be received !
>
> jh
>
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|