In a message dated 2/27/01 2:11:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Scanning Fuji Superia 400?
Date: 2/27/01 2:11:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aimcompute)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]
</A>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Tom<< : Are you saying that Fuji has posted test results that show their
films don't
scan as well as Kodak films?>>
Where in hoot did you get that assumption from? I said nor inferred nothing
of the sort! What is it about a simple declarative statement that you failed
to get the gist of it? The statement says: go to each site and make the
comparative analysis for yourself, since you're not likely, (not if this post
is a reflection of your disbelief in what I ~did~ say) to believe me.
Tom<< : 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.>>
KODAK PORTRA and SUPRA do precisely that in spades. They are also great
scanning emulsions.
Tom<< :I think all films are formulated for scanning by virtue of the fact
they can all be scanned.>>
HUH!? You ~think~!? There is ample evidence out there for you to peruse
about scanning, film scanning and the like. Don't want to visit the KODAK PRO
site to learn about digital film scanning? Go to the FUJI ProNet site.
Film scanning is a learning technology, one I am just getting to know. But
again, don't believe me: find the film-digital site you like best and visit
them.
Tom<< : 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.>>
KODAK itself found that publishing RMS specs was useless in the real world.
Tom<< : What am I really trying to say? This: Just because Kodak says
something
doesn't make me believe it.>>
Just because GWB says it...
Tom<< :I did my rough film comparison tests between Portra, Reala, and Fuji
NPS and found PORTRA to absolutely suck IMO, when shot as rated.>>
"Rough comparisons" are not definitive tests. Such comparisons many times
are based on "do I like this?"
<<You were one of the persons who clued me into shooting it at a lower ISO.>>
You may not believe me, but I don't remember that incident, especially in the
light of my consistently advocating shooting PORTRA at box speed since March
of last year.
Tom<< : 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".>>
There was a long thread last year about this time regarding whether PORTRA
should be shot at box speed (my assertion) or whether it should be "Rated" at
125 or even 100, like a slide film.
Recently, a thread discussed not PORTRA, but whether, in the light of print
film having such wide exposure latitude, "Rating" print film is even
~practical~, given its exposure latitude circumstances.
Tom<< : It's the ONLY film I've ever felt the need to rate differently in
order to get acceptable results.>>
I have absolutely nothing to say.
<< I'm not saying it's a bad film. I am saying that just because Kodak makes
a
claim, does not make it true.
Again, there is nothing for me to say Tom.
Tom C.>>
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 .
