Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dick, Had you used Royal Supra 200 for your shot instead of Portra 400NC and under-exposed about a stop with your M7 on "Auto" with the exposure lock, I expect you would have gotten about what Douglas did, and with a lot more of the "crackle" of film on the bark of those trees while still having a good bit of shadow detail. The 400 Supra might have worked as well, but I use it for flatter light normally, so I'm not certain. Until recently B&H had pro-packs (5 rolls) of the 200, USAW (made here for sale abroad). They do not currently, but still have some 400 and 800 available. This changes from time-to-time. Royal Supra is just magnificent film, very fine-grained, just the right saturation for my taste to record colors delicately, less grain at 200 than Fuji Superia at 100, very sharp and easy to scan, and with a less fragile base stock than the Fuji. It has recently been discontinued in Europe to be replaced by 200 & 400 Elite negative, (which may be slightly punchier), but Supra IS NOT discontinued in Australia and the Far East. I have about 15 rolls of the 200 left, but will keep looking periodically on the B&H site for more. I assume that film going to the Far East is still being manufactured in Rochester... Best, William At 10:13 PM 12/06/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Jim - I used Gold 400 very happily for a long time before switching to >Supra 400 at the recommendation of my photo processor. Supra is now hard >to find and I've been playing around with Portra NC, VC and UC. NC is >really pale - you saw the photo of the sycamores. VC is closest to Supra >in my experience. UC is REALLY saturated. Kodak has changed its films so >much lately I've lost track of what's available but I think I'll look at >the 100 and 200 speed negative films that are around and give a couple a >try. Thanks. . > >>Richard, >> >>After similar disappointments, I settled on Kodak Gold 200, and it has >>served me well. There should be a similar Professional Version rated at >>200, but I have not really pursued that route yet. >> >>Jim Nichols >>nicholsj@edge.net >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Richard S. Taylor <r.s.taylor@comcast.net> >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: 12/6/2004 1:04:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Bad Exposure or Something Else? >>> >>> John - Your "sinful" attempt to correct the image is certainly closer >> > to what I saw - and thanks you and to all the others who responded >>(snip) > >Regards, > >Dick >Boston MA