Norman Unsworth wrote:
> Without a doubt, Rob, that's the best answer re: fundamentals.
> I've been shooting a lot of 400 speed, albeit quality films
> (Supra, Fuji NPH). The Supra 400 isn't too bad at all, really,
> but I've had some very grainy results shooting NPH with a flash.
I haven't had the spare cash to buy 5 rolls of Supra 400 to try
it (you can only buy 5 roll lots in Australia). It's supposedly
"optimised for scanning" whatever that means. I've used Fuji
Superia 400 and if it's properly exposed in bright daylight
conditions, the apparent grain isn't too bad. I've had to use
400 to get sharp photos while flying in ultralight aircraft.
> Interestingly, I just shot 2 rolls of Kodak T400CN for a local
> newspaper. I used Kodak mailers and when I got the pics & negs
> back, all the pics had a pink cast (fortunately, the negs were
> great)! I don't know the technical reason for this, although I
> know that the CN film can be printed on either color or B&W
> paper, but wouldn't you think the techs at the Kodak labs
> would look at the prints and ponder whether prints with a pink
> cast could possibly be right? Dumb.
I've shot quite a few rolls of T400CN. On colour paper it *will*
have a sepia tone to it. XP2 seemed to come out bluish. It has
to do with the base colour of the emulsion and how the colour
paper interacts with it AFAICS. My local lab can print T400CN
on B&W paper in their minilab, but of course it costs more, and
neither paper gives results as good as "proper" B&W paper. I just
get the prints on colour paper, enjoy the tone and try to guess
what it will look like on real B&W paper. :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
