Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/31

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

Subject: [Leica] PAW 4 - 2005 - Lee Hermann
From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard)
Date: Mon Jan 31 20:41:33 2005
References: <5.1.1.6.2.20050131171139.02af3a58@mail.bresnan.net> <007901c50817$a7b6c410$6401a8c0@hal>

Of all the photos I took, there were a few rolls of our kidz taken when 
they were young about 8 years on Kodak Gold 200. I wish I have taken them 
with a different film, the grain was the size of golf balls :-( The kidz 
were that young only once.

There is a large dose of truth in you never heard someone says, "Hey that 
picture looks pretty good, did you try to use a cheaper 
(camera/lens/film/processing)?"

At 08:36 PM 1/31/2005, Chandos Michael Brown wrote:

>Kodak Gold, for all its virtues, is still a crummy film.  You're
>shooting with the best optics that modern 35mm film technology affords.
>Why not use the best emulsions available?  Even allowing for the
>vagaries of web transmission, the color balance is off here, the dynamic
>range limited, and what might have been an engaging image is overwhelmed
>by the mediocrity of its reproduction.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 


Replies: Reply from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] PAW 5 - 2005)
In reply to: Message from lkhermann at bresnan.net (lkhermann) ([Leica] PAW 4 - 2005 - Lee Hermann)
Message from chandos at cox.net (Chandos Michael Brown) ([Leica] PAW 4 - 2005 - Lee Hermann)