In article <5jnqb7Fg887U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Benveniste <mhb-offer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
><mark.thomas.7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Somebody..???
>
>I've shot both, but I've never done a head-to-head
>comparison and likely never will. With the lighting and
>labs I use I _think_ I slightly prefer the Fuji. Both
>have excellent grain structure, but the prints from the
>Kodak film have a fraction more blue than I'd like.
>
>Since my last decent sized portraiture project, one of
>my local labs has switched from analog to digital
>enlargements. The next time I use them for 160S, I'll
>add in a 160NC shot and take another look.
So far, I did not try the new Kodak films. The Fuji films are extremely
sharp, but the grain is not as nice as the old 160NC. However, 160NC is
not as sharp as 160S.
From the datasheets is looks like the new 160NC is less sharp than the old
one.
Sometimes grain of the Fuji films gets a bit too ugly. I guess I have to
try a roll of 160NC some time.
(I judge film by how it scans on an LS-4000)
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
|
