Michael Fontana wrote:
> Before dropping the subject, I just want to say that before
> slamming a film, I think we should all know a little
> more about it, and what it's good at and what its
> weaknesses are. If you're saying Kodachrome
> 200 is grainy, you probably aren't using it for its
> strengths. Kodachrome 200 requires a standout subject,
> such as a portrait, macro, or wild animal in sharp focus
> against a blurred background. I have 8x10s with very fine
> grain taken with Kodachrome 200. I also have
> 4x6s of night landscapes with very pronounced
> grain. Kodachrome 200 is extremely sharp and has a great
> color palette in various types of lighting.
> If you haven't taken the time to study it and
> just dismissed it as being terrible, you're doing yourself a
> disservice. Perhaps I've done the same thing with E100VS.
>
> Michael
_________________________________________________________
Geeezzzzz Michael,
I was just commmenting about the film much as you were
with E100VS. Film choice is a personal issue.
I can see uses for K200 but for me the lack of K14
processing and wonderful selection of high caliber
E-6 films allowed me other choices. That's all.
I have used K25/64/200 but for my money, my personal
taste I prefer the Kodak E100 family or Fuji's Provia.
Also, color reproduction while some may say is Garrish with
certain Fuji Velvia/Provia or Kodak E100 films, the purples
are reproduced as purples not pinkish magentas as with
Kodachrome. Now I know this for fact. Its also shown
in many books, Galen Rowell's among them (a big
Kodachrome user at one point in his career).
Now please read this as nothing against the film,
not slamming it as you would suggest, just not my
cup of tea.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
