Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Actually, I think that Kodak over market researches their products. The Tmax line started with we need much finer grain and less silver and ended up with a relatively hard to process product. In the hands of an expert, say John Sexton, the films are flawless. In the hands of the usual lab or duffer the highlights are blown, fixation is probably incomplete, and the grain is higher in the midtones on up as they are overexposed. E-6 films are another case of cluelessness. Back in the dark ages, Ektachrome was simply blue unless you shot at sunset because that was the actual Kelvin. Now you know what there are so many warming filters in the used filter bin. Agfa first and then Fuji brought out emulsions that more closely represented what the eye saw and took major market share. When Kodak decided that Fuji had way too much professional market share they brought out a long series of warmer emulsions. Like Tmax, under controlled conditions they were excellent, in the real world they were a little too yellow or contrasty or dmax was weak. If Kodak had just brought out a warm Kodachrome and worked on making turn around quick they would still own this market. In color print Kodak missed the move to higher speed emulsions. When Fuji concentrated on 400 and 800 ISO emulsions Kodak was still tweaking Gold 100. Now that it is almost too late, Kodak has brought out the Ultra line which is pretty good stuff, probably better than the Fuji equivalent. Unfortunately, they lost their dominance of the market and Wal-Mart puts up the green stuff. Don dorysrus@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery Smith Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:37 AM To: 'Leica Users Group' Subject: RE: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists Because Fuji seems to give better results, but I understand what you're saying. Back before Fuji, film snobs preferred Ilford and Agfa. I guess Kodak seemed synonymous with "snapshots of Ozzie Nelson". Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Hellman Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:27 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists I'm not a dentist but I've talked with a number about the subject. They have mentioned: the standing hunched over, the need for very steady hands, the physical contortions necessary to do the job, and problems with dental insurance. They seem like a fairly content group. Statistics are tricky things. But your post led to your fascinating website. I have a Retina I and a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B and have always regretting passing up a Retina IIIC in the distant past. And why do film snobs eschew Kodak film, execpt for Tri-X? Jesse Karen Nakamura wrote: > > OK, this is an off-topic question except for the fact that dentists seem > to like Leicas. > > Dentists seem to also retire early. Is it true that dentistry is a > particularly tough job? Is the rumor about dentists having the highest > suicide rate true? > > Or do dentists just retire early so that they can actually enjoy all the > Leicas they have bought? > > Just some random thoughts. > > Karen > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information