Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Kodak Royal Gold 1000 - any good?
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:50:05 -0800

Depth of Field.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Andre Jean Quintal [mailto:andrequintal@netscape.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 10:04 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Kodak Royal Gold 1000 - any good?


At 21:09 +0100 10/12/98, Mike Dembinski wrote:
[ . . . ]
>What's the difference between shooting with a Summicron at f/2 1/125 sec.
>with RG1000 and shooting with a Noctilux at f/1 1/125sec using RG200?
>
>Mike

Be careful !
The ISO 100 Royal Gold 100 is where Kodak
has integrated even more new technology,
if what i read is any true [ versus ISO 200 ].

Please consider trying out the Royal Gold 25 [ ! ] .
Different from Ektar 25.

With the sort of lenses you use, the extra
"blow-up-ability" should be awesome,
when processed by professional lens grade
equipped labs.

Have you received that ugly Kodak PORTRA
orange faced "accurate flesh tones emulsion"
advertising ? I can't believe ONE pro would go
for that much off-mark images [ like CC20 - CC30 off ! ] . . .

Andre Jean Quintal



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It ain't easy being a Frog !
                        Kermit