In a message dated 2/27/01 8:44:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fuji makes great film. But formulating film for scanning is not their
forte.
> KODAK makes the PORTRA and SUPRA films. ~All~ of them are formulated to be
> scanned, the SUPRA breed outperforming its sibling and nearly everything
else.
KODAK makes the PORTRA and SUPRA films. ~All~ of them are formulated to be
> scanned, the SUPRA breed outperforming its sibling and nearly everything
else.
Aaron asks<<: What issues did you have when comparing which Kodak and Fuji
films while scanning?>>
No ~issues~ per se. FUJI is late off the mark in formulating film
specifically formulated for scanning; they admit that. KODAK on the other
hand, with their 1995 issuance of their EKTAPRESS film, and BETA testing
before the 1996 OLYMPICS at Atlanta, has been in the business of formulating
scannable film since before 1992. At Atlanta, working PJs were given rolls
of the new emulsions to test.
(I was honored to be one of the EKTAPRESS BETA testers).
For the 1996 OLYMPICS, KODAK had an on-site processing facility and provided
on-site satellite uplinks to PJs to directly uploads their scans to their
publications.
PJs were encouraged to shoot EKTAPRESS along side FUJI films during the
games. The results were overwhelmingly positive for KODAK'S EKTAPRESS site to
site scan integrity. Very few corrections were needed by the receiving
publications. KODAK'S foray into the 1996 OLYMPICS convinced many PJs and
publishers to switch to EKTAPRESS, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED being one who switched
~before~ the 1996 OLYMPICS began.
As a film finisher, ~you~ see the differences.
FUJI films, consumer or pro, most of which are optimized to reproduce or
enhance greens, (blues), are remarkable at that mission.
FUJI, relating to Gamma correction, often comes down on the European (blue)
(cool) side of Gamma proof standards. KODAK film, formulated to reproduce
more red/yellow/orange, reproduces those colors with ease, coming down on the
American (warm) Gamma standard (red/yellow orange) side.
*Compounding the problem is the predilection of ~ALL~ modern color film to
give Caucasian people "Tans," or a "ruddy" complexion. While desirable for
Caucasians, modern color formulation is ~not~ desirable for people of color.
FUJI, whether film or scanned, leaves blotches and/or gray-green shadows on
the faces of people of color.
When scanning people of color, most FUJI films are miserable when asked to
properly record shadow detail in their faces, while SUPRA/EKTAPRES/PORTRA
[NC] are usually dead-bang on.
*Most other KODAK films are as bad or worse for people of color. But
remember, my comments about KODAK film scannability related to two KODAK
film: quote: "KODAK makes the PORTRA and SUPRA films, ~all~ of them are
formulated to be scanned, the SUPRA breed outperforming its sibling and
nearly everything else." close quote;
see, not the whole KODAK line, as you and others have inferred.
Aaron<<:You trot out this line a lot, so I'm curious as to what you're
backing it up with aside from Kodak's sales pitch.>>
The data for my assertions is available to anyone who wants to make the
comparisons themselves**. KODAK and FUJI have test results posted. I have a
suspicion you or others might not believe (your post confirms that) me so the
proof, so to speak, is in published data from both companies.
**~This~ very thread is about the scannability of SUPERIA film.
Would you also accept the recent review of SUPRA by Shutterbug Magazine as
proof, or will you say what most might and do say: that Shutterbug (any
publication) and its reporter are in the pocket of the advertiser? The
Shutterbug SUPRA report supplies technical data of the tested emulsions in a
far more precise (and for your purposes), believable way than I might,
~printed~ data you and others should use to make your own comparisons.
Of course the very best test, for your purposes at least, particularly since
you have facilities at hand, would be for ~you~ to shoot and scan several
SUPRA-EKTAPRESS-PORTRA emulsions yourself.
Aaron<<: Fuji advertise the newest formulations of NPS and NPC as optimized
for
scanning, too, y'know.>>
We'll have to wait for the FUJI results. Meanwhile, the data for KODAK'S
(scanner optimized film) is already available on the KODAK PRO website.
My point has always been the scannability of KODAK emulsions formulated for
scanning, not ~all~ KODAK emulsions as you seem to ask in this post.
It ~does~ astonish me how otherwise erudite fellows and women, seem to
~deliberately~ miss what I write. Worse, as you did here:
Aaron<<: "What issues did you have when comparing which Kodak and Fuji films
while scanning?"
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||
Your question(s) had little bearing on what I've said about the scannability
of only two KODAK films: SUPRA and PORTRA. I've never said, nor have I
inferred, that the whole line of KODAK products, pro and amateur, is superior
to the whole line of FUJI products.
Please, if you or anyone ~must~ ask me questions about my posts, at least
base the questions on what I've written and not what you think, or what ~you~
want me to have said...OK?
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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 .
