----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: February 16, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: 43mm Lens & Supra 400
> In a message dated 2/16/01 12:13:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Mafud doesn't know about the stunningly fine grain of the
Fuji films. >>
>
> Most Fuji emulsions do green better for sure. My observation
had to do with
> the intended use, not for day in day out personal preference.
> How ~does~ it do when scanned, which was my previous question?
Certainly its
> scannability should be a part of any comparison.
Not when the original question had nothing to do with
scanning. Aaron stated specifically that Lisle Kelko used Fuji
Reala for testing lens sharpness, testing film scanners was not
part of the equation. If the film will not be scanned, then it's
scannability isn't important.
The old adage about Fuji being better for landscape and
Kodak being better for people is no longer true, and hasn't been
for at least a decade. Fuji is (I hate to say) better than Kodak
in nearly every regard. Their colour palette is more neutral,
the grain and resolution is higher on a speed for speed basis,
and the film is mechanically better, being less prone to damage
in processing and printing equipment, and also more resistant to
chemical variations in the processor.
Where Fuji fails is in supporting small interest specialty
markets, such as black and white (virtually no products) and
infrared (no products).
With the exception of Kodachrome, their slide films seem
more respected than the Ektachromes. Unfortunately, Kodak seems
intent on murdering their best slide films (Kodachrome) by
mishandling them in the marketplace and in the processing labs.
William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
