Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There has been an incredible change in the quality of print film since the '80s. At least for 8 x 10 from 35 mm, I see no point in using film slower than 400. Perhaps the 800 film will begin to show grain for that degree of enlargement. The print film of the '80s had poor color saturation and poor definition--definitely good for little other than portraiture (my humble opinion). The current stuff is absolutely brilliant. If your ultimate object is prints, not slides, print film is now the preferred medium, if only that it's great latitude means that decisions as to whether to show detail in shadows or highlights can usually be made when printing--do not need to be made when shooting the picture. People have their favorites, but I'm convinced that there is not that much difference between films, despite what reviewers say. At one point, I read a glowing review of Agfa Optima; I had been using Fuji Superia. So, I put a roll of each in each of two cameras and shot the same picture using the same focal length. Well, when I first printed, the two negatives produced radically different colors, but after fiddling with the enlarger filtration, I was able to produce indistinguishable prints from both. And, since the grain appeared similar, I settled on the Fuji, which is obtainable in groceries and and drug stores all over the world, while the Agfa film, at least around here, is only to be found in a camera store. -- Herbert Kanner kanner@acm.org 650-326-8204 Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer!