Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Bad Exposure or Something Else?
From: r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard S. Taylor)
Date: Tue Dec 7 10:09:52 2004
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20041206235919.04786310@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>

William - Just checked on the B&H site and confirmed they have Supra 
400 as you say but there was no mention of expiration dates.  Can you 
say anything about the dates on the film you buy from them?  3 months 
from now ? 6? 12? More?

>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,
(snip)
-- 
Regards,

Dick
Boston MA

Replies: Reply from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] Re: Bad Exposure or Something Else?)
Reply from lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III) ([Leica] Bad Exposure or Something Else?)
In reply to: Message from lambroving at worldnet.att.net (William G. Lamb, III) ([Leica] Bad Exposure or Something Else?)