Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 5:45 PM -0700 7/15/00, Mark Rabiner wrote: >"Henning J. Wulff" wrote: >><Snip> >> I tried the 160 as well, and find no reason to use it instead of the 400. >> If I go to a slower film, it is either Reala or the Supra 100. >> >Blur from the modeling lights? >The grain may be the same but the 160 has got to resolve better I should >thing. > For those split ends at the end of eye lashes. > Can't live without those! >Mark Rabiner I find splitting those ends manually is a real drag. It's much easier to do with bad bokeh! OTOH, no, I don't really find an advantage to the 160 even in that area. There might be some, but the difference between the 100 speed films and the 400/160 is apparent to me, but not the difference between the 160 and 400. So it's 100 or 400 for me. I'm sure that there are reasons to use the 160's, but I just haven't found them yet in my shooting. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com