Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What kind of devlopment are you guys giving these films? That may help me to understand great disparity in your experiences. Dave dannyg1 wrote: > > 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