The best advice was from Shel and Tom (you alluded to it, Boris, and others may have mentioned it):
Talk to my lab about it. I'll see what Robert recommends, and make sure I have some of that with me.
My current thinking is to maybe go with Delta 3200, Neopan 1600 and TMax p3200, with an extra one of whatever Robert likes.
This'll be fun for sure. And, as these people are currently recording their second CD (they're indies, so just sell them at their shows and in independant record stores), the words "CD cover photo" have been muttered... <vbg> Of course, we'll have to see how it goes, won't we?
cheers, and thanks again, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Fast B&W Film Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:24:33 +0200
Hi!
My most recent wedding attempt was done with Kodak TMAX 3200 TMZ. On one hand I did not miss any shots and all exposures were fine. On the other hand I had no choice but to let it be lab processed. The lab did a lousy job and grain was significant even on 10x15 (cm! not inches!) print.
On the other hand, I tried for my basketball shooting Fuji Pro Press 1600 (if I am not mistaken with the name, anyway - Fuji 1600 pro color negative film). The same lab, but it had grain of 400 film - very smooth, though color.
So far, I made a resolution *not* to shoot TMZ until I learn how to process it myself. If you do your own processing, TMZ can be good, I think. Otherwise, in my shoes I would use Fuji 1600 color negative.
Naturally you wear your own shoes.
Just my cents.
Boris
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
