Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2001-04-09-01:28:48 Peter Klein: > Still, if this guy runs a processing lab, he must know *something* about > all this. Well, maybe. > And I don't plan to enlarge more than a few of the best prints, > and probably to no more than 8x10 or 11x14. If the new Kodak Supra 400 > film is really that good, and I didn't have to worry about which film I'd > loaded... Hmm. Tempting. My $0.02? We're talking only about color negative film here, right? While I've long been a nearly universal Fuji-color-neg fella for years, I've been seduced away in recent years at some speeds. Okay. At 100, I'd say that good old Reala still can't be beat, if you have enough light that you're not compromising sharpness with overlong shutter speeds. Go ahead, take some along. At 400, I've just discovered Agfa Optima II 400, and it rocks. If you mix up the (4x6) prints, you almost mistake it for Reala. (Reala's finer grain and somewhat snappier colors are still visible.) It's true: these days, 400-speed isn't an unreasonable choice for a standard film. (Kodak Supra 400 puzzles me: sometimes it almost seems as if some similar colors [especially some reds] get sucked into the same "bucket". The jury's still out, but I'm not using much of it.) At 800, I've found that Kodak Supra 800 is far better than film of its speed has any right to be. Doesn't seem to have the quirks of the 400 Supra, either. At 1600, I still rely on what I know works: Fuji NHG II (800) pushes really well.