[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

["" <focus@adnc.com>]

Impresa looks nice, but it barely has more latitude than slide film, and can 
get weird
cross-casts if overexposed (not that that's a problem in a digiral darkroom, 
but was an
incredibly annoying issue in an analog workflow).

The grain and resolution are a hair better than Reala, but, to me, not enough 
so to be
worth it. Also tends to have very dense but detailed highlights--not a film to 
use with a
cheap scanner. If I need monster reproduction, AND better contrast handling 
than Provia
I'll use it--that is, not very darn often.

If I had better equipment I'd never use it--by the time you've enlarged enough 
to see its
superiority over Reala or Provia (in 120), you're well into "shoulda used 4 x 
5" territory.

One other thing--I've seen tests where it correctly renders 
visible-but-high-spectrum
violet correctly, where other films came up with some weird blue. Basically 
there are
certain flowers that are a problem, otherwise it's not an issue.


"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

> "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com> writes:
>
> (snip)
>
> I haven't tried the Portra films yet, but Reala's clearly worse than Provia
> for grain noise, although the latitude is nice. XP2 is a horror, but I did
> get one OK A4 portrait out of it. Thanks for the recommendation. I have two
> rolls of Konica Impressa 50 sitting here: are they worth shooting???
>
> (Slide films are much easier to deal with, since i can see what I've got.
> But that's my problem, not the technology's.)
>
> (snip)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body