[Leica] Totally OT question now Kodak questions

[lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III)]

Don,

Just an opinion from an amateur. I'm now hooked on Royal Supra
200 Professional which was ranked #1 by a leading English photo
magazine. The stuff is sharp, has very natural color and is very
fine-grained. In the U.S. I have to get it from B&H because it is not
sold here, but ironically it's made here. Too bad about Kodak...

Shot some 100 Superia on my recent travels and found it in no
way superior to the faster RS-200 Pro. I've tried all the ISO 160
stuff from Fuji too and find it nowhere near as sharp as the RS.
The negative base seems more fragile too.

William

At 10:56 AM 08/01/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Actually, I think that Kodak over market researches their products.
>
>The Tmax line started with we need much finer grain and less silver and
>ended up with a relatively hard to process product.  In the hands of an
>expert, say John Sexton, the films are flawless.  In the hands of the
>usual lab or duffer the highlights are blown, fixation is probably
>incomplete, and the grain is higher in the midtones on up as they are
>overexposed.
>
>E-6 films are another case of cluelessness.  Back in the dark ages,
>Ektachrome was simply blue unless you shot at sunset because that was
>the actual Kelvin.  Now you know what there are so many warming filters
>in the used filter bin.  Agfa first and then Fuji brought out emulsions
>that more closely represented what the eye saw and took major market
>share.
>
>When Kodak decided that Fuji had way too much professional market share
>they brought out a long series of warmer emulsions.  Like Tmax, under
>controlled conditions they were excellent, in the real world they were a
>little too yellow or contrasty or dmax was weak.
>
>If Kodak had just brought out a warm Kodachrome and worked on making
>turn around quick they would still own this market.
>
>In color print Kodak missed the move to higher speed emulsions.  When
>Fuji concentrated on 400 and 800 ISO emulsions Kodak was still tweaking
>Gold 100.
>Now that it is almost too late, Kodak has brought out the Ultra line
>which is pretty good stuff, probably better than the Fuji equivalent.
>Unfortunately, they lost their dominance of the market and Wal-Mart puts
>up the green stuff.
>
>Don
>dorysrus@mindspring.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
>Of Jeffery Smith
>Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:37 AM
>To: 'Leica Users Group'
>Subject: RE: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists
>
>Because Fuji seems to give better results, but I understand what you're
>saying. Back before Fuji, film snobs preferred Ilford and Agfa. I guess
>Kodak seemed synonymous with "snapshots of Ozzie Nelson".
>
>Jeffery Smith
>New Orleans, LA
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Jesse
>Hellman
>Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:27 AM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists
>
>I'm not a dentist but I've talked with a number about the subject. They
>have mentioned: the standing hunched over, the need for very steady
>hands, the physical contortions necessary to do the job, and problems
>with dental insurance.
>
>They seem like a fairly content group. Statistics are tricky things.
>
>But your post led to your fascinating website. I have a Retina I and a
>Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B and have always regretting passing up a Retina
>
>IIIC in the distant past.
>
>And why do film snobs eschew Kodak film, execpt for Tri-X?
>
>Jesse