Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I > recall it as having been no contest, all right, but because the Neopan seemed > to have fist-sized clumps of grain by comparison to TMZ. I seem to be running into alot of dead contrary opinions these days. Is it a full moon? I've found the Kodak stuff _much_ more grainy, muddier and less sharp than Neopan 1600. The Fuji film prints for me much like Tri-x pushed to 800 with the exception of less highlight blockage and the existace of actual shadow detail. The Kodak 3200 film is just plain ugly in my opinion, while the Fuji is plain gorgeous. Danny Gonzalez