Re: [Leica] Was there Ever ...

["Gerhard Paulman" <gerhardp@inch.com>]

Kim,

Thanks, I finally found my Tungsten film.  And yes, I agree, it's a bit
slow.  It didn't occur to me to simply look for a T suffix, but there it is.

I compared the spectral graphs for the Tungsten Portra and a higher speed
daylight Portra, and the difference is subtle, mostly in the slope and
overlap.  So one can see how this can easily be corrected for in printing.
And that's the way the world has gone.
The problem is with the one hour labs, as Mark pointed out.  (and who
doesn't use them now and then for convenience and speed?)  They'll get it
wrong every time.<g>  And then, for more money, they can of course correct
their mistakes.

I have the feeling, that in general our fellow lugers don't like Kodak films
that much.  Maybe it's a case of the grass always being greener on the other
side.

Gerhard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Teresa299@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Was there Ever ...


>
> In a message dated 1/8/02 10:13:59 PM, markc@binaryfaith.com writes:
>
> <<
>
>
> Hey Gerhard,
>
> For the Ektacolor 160pro from Chile, go to
>
http://www.kodak.cl/CL/es/professional/color/peliculas/ektacolorPro160.shtml
>
> As for tungsten print film, they (kodak/fuji) might not make it anymore..
> The thinking is print papers are WAY more forgiving then Type R or
> Ilfochrome papers.. So users can shoot indoors and have the photo printer
> correct for the warm indoor tungsten light..
>
> Let me tell you, never trust a one hour printer who tells you that they
> can print your indoor pictures w/o a funny hue.. I used to work in 1 hour
> labs and you are never guaranteed to get more then adequate results with
> trying to correct.. Its kind of like trying to print b/w negs on color
> paper... some of them look good, the low contrast ones look green and the
> high contrast ones look sepia..
>
> I suspect that since most people who aren't pros shoot their color print
> film over a number of days wouldn't like tungsten balanced print film..
> could you imagine the pictures from the pool? :) Everything Blue! They
> would run to their lab and complain.. (heh.. been there, done that.. no
> thank you! (some lady shot Ektachrome 64t thinking the t mean true color..
> all outdoors at a family reunion.. it wasn't pretty) They would get 1/2 a
> roll that looked good and the rest would suck.,. (more than they normally
> would)
>
> I think a lot of people shoot NPS/NPH and the kodak Ektapress films to get
> closer to the proper color temp in wierd lighting conditions..
>
> For me, Im sticking with Delta 400 and XTol.. :)
>
> -Mark >>
>
>
> I'm coming in late on the thread, so forgive me if I'm missing the
question.
>
> Kodak makes a color, tungsten print film part of their portra series...
> P-100T, comes in all sizes, from 135-35 up to 8x10.  (This replaced PRT in
> 1999).
>
> Fuji's color, tungsten print film is NPL-160T.  This only comes in 120,
4x5
> and 8x10.
>
> I like NPL but if you're using a Leica you'll have to go with the Portra.
>
> I think the market for these films are pro wedding photographers, but I
like
> them because I can use crappy clip on lights and get decent color print
> results.
>
> At 100 and 160 they can be a bit slow, but hey, that's what they make
> noctiluxes for!
>
>
> -kim
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html