Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:36 PM 1/31/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Kodak Gold, for all its virtues, is still a crummy film. You're
>shooting with the best optics that modern 35mm film technology affords.
>Why not use the best emulsions available? Even allowing for the
>vagaries of web transmission, the color balance is off here, the dynamic
>range limited, and what might have been an engaging image is overwhelmed
>by the mediocrity of its reproduction.
>
>And I am simply and incandescently green (as is the white balance of
>this image) with envy that this jaundiced chap is eating as well as he
>is, and boozing on white plonk, as well.
>
>Cheers!
>
>C
Dear Chandos, Richard and Richard,
Thankyou for commenting. It was good food and I enjoyed it. I
have to confess that I have taken the path of least resistence and
purchased cheap film, more or less standardizing on kodak gold 200. The
film that I loved best was kodachrome 25. I must confess that I have
examined the negatives and the film that was used for this photo was Kodak
Ultracolor 400. I got the roll at the LHSA meeting and it was in the bag
so to speak. My real discomfort was that if I had placed the camera on the
table 6 inches to the side, I would have had his reflection as
well. Another moment missed.
Thank you for commenting and I will try to be more accurate in the future
and if I can get my act together will start processing B & W again after
many years of sloth. Perhaps it is dangerous to confess, but I use Walmart
to process the Kodak gold and they are responsible for the scans. I am
going to take a class on PhotoShop and some day I may buy my own scanner.
Thanks again for your input.
Lee