> 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.
I thought that was what this thread has evolved to... Which film is better
for scanning... If that's not it, then excuse me, I must be mistaken.
>
> 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.
>
Mafud, I have scanned enough film to know that some scan differently than
others. I also know that the ease of scanning even the same kind of film
has alot to do with the image recorded on it. It's very rare that I can
scan a piece of film and have the resulting image "match" the original
without adjusting it.
I'm no expert, but if you're just getting to know it ("one I am just getting
to know"), then your reliance on a manufacturers claims amounts to believing
ther advertisements.
I don't believe I'm the only one here to express opinions. Of course I
~think~ it. I don't have the scientific expertise or equipment to prove or
disprove my statement. I do know that when a corporation HAS ALOT TO GAIN
from something makes a statement, that statement may be grossly exagerrated
and misleading, while technically true to the words. Every film
manufacturer wants you to think they're the best, every car manufacturer,
every tennis ball maker, you name it.
> 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.
Because they were being beat into the ground when thinking consumers could
compare apples to apples. So Kodak asks us to compare apples to oranges.
>
> 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...
What?
>
> 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?"
EXACTLY! When I shoot the same subject at different exposures in the same
kind of lighting with & w/o flash, and repeat it on 3 or 4 different kinds
of film, I can come up with a rough, if not perfect test that tells me
something. On the other hand countless hours & dollars can't be spent do
detailed scientifically accurate tests that do not neceesarially correlate
to the results in the field.
>
> <<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.
You suggested rating 160 at 100/125 and 400 at 320. You could search the
archives around June/July of 1999, but it really doesn't matter. I was and
still am grateful that you brought it to my attention.
I have since deleted the comments that started part of this, by Aaron I
think. I think the question was: How do you back up your statements. Your
answer is essentially "Because the manufacturer said so".
Typically, it's the manufacturers statements that I discount first.
Tom C.
-
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 .
