> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Munro
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:07 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: EOS Re: OT: Film FCR comparison
> >
> > I would be interested to hear if anyone on the list has done, or seen, any
> > comparisons on the effective contrast range of various print films. I have
> > had some unsatisfactory results shooting bikes at the track on very bright
> > days using Kodak and Fuji consumer grade films. To get a moderate
> > amount of detail in some darker bikes the background has had to be blown out
>
> > considerably, resulting in an overall image that I'm not happy
> > with.
The one thing I've noticed in this discussion (perhaps I've missed it?) is that
no one has asked what is being used to judge the results. The negs? Scans?
Machine prints? If it's the latter, then there's really no way to accurately
assess the exposure of the negative, given the limitations of machine processing
and the high contrast of minilab print papers. If Tim has not already done so, I
would suggest doing or having done a reasonably high-resolution scan (at least
2400 ppi) and taking a look at the amount of detail in the scan. My experience
is that even a modest film scanner can pull a lot more detail (especially shadow
detail) from a negative than will appear on a minilab print. Alternatively,
having a custom print made on a lower-contrast pro paper could be
informative�perhaps a 5x7 (inch) if his lab will do it.
Note too that consumer-grade print film tends to have higher contrast and
greater saturation than does "pro" film, so it might be worthwhile to try
something like Reala or NPH in these conditions.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
