I use the Supra 400 most of the time for all around shooting. It seems to me
at the least that it has problems with nature scenes. Could be me, I guess.
Skintones come out good, but I haven't shot portraits with it. I think
someone mentioned that it was good for the dark complected. I love the
product I get when taking pictures of auto shows and races. I get good
results with the 20-35FA at I'd say about 30mm shooting cars in the padock
and pits or at a show. Little grain, and you get very good detail on
engines, brakes and such with the 28-70FA at let say 50mm to 70mm. I get
better results then the last time I shot Royal Gold 200. The lighting was
overcast and I could have used fill flash and got better results, so maybe
I'll give the 200 another try. Or it could be the Supra is more consistant.
Until then the Supra 400 is it for me. By the way, I only like the Supra
800, when speed is needed. I tried to save some shots that were over and or
underexposed and the results were awful. Heavy grain on both.
l8r,
Douglas E Harmon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://personal.mia.bellsouth.net/~genius91/
From: Rofini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Hi Erik,
:
: >I am looking to try out some better print films and need some
: advise. I tend
: >to shoot a lot of outdoor landscape/wildlife scenes and sports.
:
: Kodak Supra film has been mentioned lately on PDML and it's the
: color print film I use. Worth a try. The 100 is my staple. The
: 400 approaches the grain and subtlety of color found in slower
: emulsions. The 800 is far from the performance of the 400 but
: good if you need it. The 800 doesn't take underexposure well; at
: a certain point it gets grainy quickly.
:
: Mark Rofini
:
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
