Well, on both occasions, shooting Superia 1600, the Kodak machine seemed to give smoother results, and more vibrant (yet not over saturated) colours. On the other hand, grain was very noticeable getting my cds back from the Fuji place, and it almost seemed oversharpened. I felt the Kodak developing/printing/scanning results gave my shots a better sense of depth, if that makes sense. At first I thought it was resolution, but they're both the same.
Reason I tried this Fuji place was because my regular Kodak one-hour lab closed down and left me in the lurch. Oh well. John (Coyle), unfortunately, while Ralda (for everyone else's info, the lady at the Fuji place) gives a good price, I'm not extremely pleased with the results, because of extra time needed for post processing. That roll of T100CN came out with very flat contrast, without distinct blacks and whites. I'm not sure if this was a human error, but fortunately, it can be corrected in PSP8 using the black and white points tool. My personal conclusion is Fuji film, Kodak developing, scanning & printing = good results. Unfortunately now I have to find a Kodak place which will give me a good price.. or go digital sooner.. Anyone else compared Fuji and Kodak machines (The usual ones at one hour labs.. e.g. Frontier etc.)? Thoughts to share? Cheers, Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 7:44 PM Subject: Re: Young Lady > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Ryan Lee wrote: > > > A bit disappointed with the quality of > > the Fuji machine (the first batch was done at a Kodak). > > Interesting. How? > > Kostas > >
