[Leica] Bad Exposure or Something Else?

[lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III)]

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