Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First, the differences are not major and don't translate well into magazine reproduction so that when you read a film test, most of the time you look at the pictures and wonder what the editors are seeing that you don't. However, the Fuji films all contain an additional dye layer that makes results in mixed lighting easier to convert into daylight tones. At the higher speeds the Fuji's tend to behave like 200 speed film from several years ago. For instance, I pretty much use the Fuji 800 press film, CZ 800, as my normal print film. Up to 11'' prints the grain is harmless. What you do lose in the higher emulsion speeds is the ability to record really fine detail. Unless you shoot a slower speed film in same conditions you will never know what was left out though as the results are very good indeed. Another example would be using the 50mm 1.5 Sonnar versus the modern Summicron. The Sonnar has the outlines and good contrast but won't show the fine detail of say the small pores of a face that the Summicron can. I will say that currently the Fuji 800 is superior to the Kodak higher speed emulsions in terms of delivering sharp, smooth color and tonality. Kodak announced when they brought out the Supra line that it was optimized for scanning and it does scan well. However, when I use Kodak's algorithms to scan the Fuji films I get better results than I do with the Supra. With all that said, I think that the film to use is the one available consistently in your location at the best price so that you can learn the film and how it responds to your style. Don dorysrus@mindspring.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html