--- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mischka wrote: > > just to have this done with, what i shot was pretty harsh mediterranian > sun on supra 400. what has really surprised me is that the slides seem > to turn out much better than the prints (and the print *film*, scanned, > much better than slides -- but that's not surprising at all). > > I have exactly the same problem. Much of what I shoot is in sunny New > Mexico and Mali. > > It is my understanding that color negative film has greater range than > color slide film, and both have much, much greater range than color > paper. So your results are exactly as they should be. > > Joe ___________________________________________ Kodak Supra, like its direct antecedent EKTAPRESS, was <i>designed</i> to be scanned. There is far more data in a Supra negative than what you may have extracted.<br> The main reason Supra worked so well for you is as a medium contrast film, it easily handles high contrast desert scenes. You can work Supra where you can not others, including medium contrast Kodak Portra films.
Ed ===== EdGreene @ YAHOO! DSL!
