[Leica] PAW 10 Lee Hermann

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

Lee,

Would have to agree with Richard, and you won't appreciate the difference 
until you try something else. Kodak Gold has nice colors, and like you, I 
prefer Kodak colors generally to Fuji. For a couple of years I've used 
Supra Pro in 200, 400 and 800, all great, but recently discontinued. In 
Europe the Supra 200 and 400 have been replaced with Elite Pro, but not 
available in the U.S. yet. Fortunately, have a good stash of Supra 12/06 
dated, which a friend in the U.K. snatched up for me. In January I tried 
experimentally some Portra 160 and 400 VC from B&H. The 400 worked well, 
but the 160 is a bit contrasty, although reasonably fine-grained. Perhaps I 
ought to have tried the Portra 160 NC. Supra is still better, but the 400 
VC was closer. Hope the Elite 200 & 400 become available here before long. 
All these recent Kodak films are optimized for scanning and have much more 
scratch-resistant bases than Fuji NPH, for example, which appears to 
scratch if you stare at it sideways! :-)

IMO, you won't really see the resolving power or the unique textures the 50 
ASPH can render until you use better film. I know you are in the 
wilderness, but as long as you have a decent camera store out there which 
uses Kodak chemistry and the Kodak C-41 or Agfa (same thing) processor, you 
can get some stunning results. Pro Packs of five rolls from B&H cost about 
$30- and UPS Ground is fine this time of year because the trucks will 
always be cool. Maybe the Portra NC would be better for your uses? The 50 
ASPH is not just about f1.4. It seems to "create" light at that aperture 
however.

You may recall this recent example I posted from Williamsburg for Chandos. 
It was taken in late afternoon light at f4. The sheep in the foreground is 
not even in sharp focus, but if I blow it up to 20"x30", the detail is 
fantastic.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/album27/LUG119?full=1>

BTW, the fingerprint of the OOF areas in the picture of your wife is 
unmistakable. Something similar in the OOF here, shot at f1.4 and 1/30th on 
Portra 400 VC. <http://gallery.leica-users.org/Molly/LUG106>

Have fun with your new toy! What camera are you using? Mine's now welded to 
my M5. :-)
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/My-Ms/50_ASPH_crop?full=1>

Good Shooting!

William

At 10:57 PM 03/12/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:17 PM 3/12/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>>You spent $2500 on a lens, and saved $2 on film? Imagine what you can do 
>>with real film!! :-)
>>
>>It's my current favorite lens, FWIW...
>
>Dear Richard,
>         Thanks for looking at the photos or at least commenting.  I think 
> that people are giving gold 200 a bum rap.  I have seen very large blow 
> ups of my negatives of aerial photos which held together very well to 
> almost mural size.  These were used at a public meeting and were far 
> bigger than any thing I have ever done.  I am certain that the negatives 
> were scanned to a much higher resolution than any of my PAWs have 
> been.  I also believe that the gold 200 is certainly a better film than 
> any available to HCB in the time of his greatest production.  You have to 
> compare it to superXX etc and not ASA 10 Kodachrome.
>Lee