FWIW, ol' Greenspun recommends either 100 or 400 ISO for print films, and to stay away from 200. The resolving power of 200 and 400 are usually so close that you might as well get the 400 and the extra stop that comes with it.
<http://www.photo.net/photo/film#avoid> t On 1/4/02 3:07 PM, Lawrence Kwan wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Rob Brigham wrote: >> RG200 is actually very good. It is the only film I ever give the wife >> to put in her P&S. There is very little grain difference between RG100 >> and RG200, and the characteristics are pretty much identical. > > Actually, RG100 is supposed to have significantly finer grain than RG200. > Here the specs from Kodak web site: > > Print Grain Index for 4"x6" prints (4.4x): > Royal Gold 100 28 > Royal Gold 200 41 > Royal Gold 400 39 > > The above is *not* a typo. Somewhat surprisingly, RG400 has slightly > finer grain than RG200, albeit the difference is miniscule. And from my > impression, it seems that as far as grain fineness is concerned, there is > usually little to gain going from 400 to 200 (as opposed to going from 400 > to 100). > > For what is worth, here are some other Kodak films' PGI for comparison: > Supra 100 27 > Supra 400 36 > Supra 800 50 > Portra 160NC 30 > Portra 400NC 41 > > References: > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e2509/e2509.shtml > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e42/index.shtml > http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e41/index.sh > tml - 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 .
