Joe, I have found that when I scan Supra 800, it looks grainy but when I have a standard print made directly from the negative, it looks much better - grain is not bad. Out of all the 800 ISO films I have tried, Supra 800 has been the least grainy (when the lab makes the prints). The ones I have tried are Fuji Superia 800, Kodak Supra 800, Kodak Portra 800 and Kodak MAX 800. Just for fun you might have the lab print one up for you to compare to your scan & print.
Bruce Dayton Tuesday, March 05, 2002, 7:30:03 PM, you wrote: JT> It is mainly the grain. In the past I've shot it at 1600 to 3200 JT> indoors, in European museums, and gotten much grain and occasionally an JT> orange cast (perhaps old tungsten lighting). Recently I shot it at 800 JT> for the first time. Result: still way too much grain, in both in-focus JT> and out-of-focus areas. The grain is especially bad in blue sky. I was JT> using telephotos to get landing geese and one of our cats. I am basing JT> my assessment on 2700 dpi scans on a Nikon LS 2000, and 7 x 10 inch JT> prints on an Epson 870. JT> Can anyone (who has done actual comparisons) recommend an ISO 800 with JT> less grain? My only other experience with 800-speed films is NHGII 800, JT> which I have shot (also in museums) at 1600 and 3200. It, too, is JT> grainy, but I prefer its overall rendition. JT> Thanks, JT> Joe - 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 .
