In a message dated 2/28/2001 12:07:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The "optimized for scanning" phrase has been tossed out here. I think Kodak intends readers to read more into this than what they are actually saying, and I think some have.>> Not true. "Some (Shutterbug Magazine, at least far more reliable in your eyes than me) have" found the film in question, at least to their own testing levels, far easier to scan than even the precedent generation and far more consistent to scan batch to batch. ,Tom<< :I would contend the phrase could make some think that said film "solves your scanning problems".>> "Optimized for scanning" works. Give it a chance. All you have to do is try one roll to slake your own curiosity. << I don't believe this can be the case, and I at least, would not choose a film primarily on this aspect, or limit the films I use to ones that make this claim.>> Tom C.>> Whether ~you~ should believe the claim is one thing, to deny its assertion without proving (or disproving) the claim yourself is merely shortsightedness. Then again, I can't rate the efficacy of FUJI consumer emulsions, in this case Superia 400, because I don't shoot FUJI consumer emulsions. My first and only assertion was regarding KODAK SUPRA/PORTRA . In that regard, I have full confidence in its claims. And that is that for me. - 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 .
