Mafud wrote:
>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.
Are you saying that Fuji has posted test results that show their films don't
scan as well as Kodak films?
As for Kodak's assertion that their films are specially formulated for
scanning... I'm not sure I believe it, nor do I think that if true, it would
necessarily be more desirable than having a film that is specially
formulated for faithfully and accurately recording the image. I think all
films are formulated for scanning by virtue of the fact they can all be
scanned.
I don't know where Kodak now stands with it's publishing of film specs, but
last I knew they did not use the same system of measurement for measuring
grain as the rest of the film world, making spec comparisons in that area,
difficult at best.
What am I really trying to say? This: Just because Kodak says something
doesn't make me believe it.
I did my rough film comparison tests between Portra, Reala, and Fuji NPS and
found PORTRA to absolutely suck IMO, when shot as rated. You were one of
the persons who clued me into shooting it at a lower ISO. Amazing to me
that Kodak makes the claim that "With PORTRA Films, you can set your meter
to the box speed and fire away in virtually all lighting conditions. No more
compensating, no more guessing". It's the ONLY film I've ever felt the need
to rate differently in order to get acceptable results.
I'm not saying it's a bad film. I am saying that just because Kodak makes a
claim, does not make it true.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Scanning Fuji Superia 400?
> 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 .
>
-
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 .
