![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*has a moment*
this is a public service announcement to all the analogue photographers on my flist:
for the longest time i used kodak film under the foolish impression that it was 'better' than other brands of colour film. this was pretty much purely motivated by brand name. however, one day several months ago i was at my developing lab and in the dire need for more film. they only had fuji film. i asked the advice of my faithful lab tech (who can remember my name but never whether i want matte or glossy prints) what the difference in quality was between fuji and kodak film, and he said they are both pretty good, but where kodak adds another layer of red onto their film, fuji add another layer of blue/green. so i decided to try it.
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
if you don't have much light indoors it tends to make the extremely shaded areas blue-ish, but if you are taking shots in outdoor conditions, ESPECIALLY nature scenes, fuji film is DIVINE. i use 400 speed and the level of detail is incredible, as well as the minute gradations of tone and colour in everything in shot. it's incredibly beautiful. my lab also prints on fuji paper and suggested chemicals, so that probably helps, but seriously - if you have a choice in future, GO FOR FUJI. i always use a 400 speed film as well, so i can push my shots at further extremes.
it is amazing.
eta: keeping in mind that the scanner has lowered quality of tone and colour a little, here are a bunch of examples:
apologies also if they are over-sized... i'm not used to working on a 1024 resolution.
for the longest time i used kodak film under the foolish impression that it was 'better' than other brands of colour film. this was pretty much purely motivated by brand name. however, one day several months ago i was at my developing lab and in the dire need for more film. they only had fuji film. i asked the advice of my faithful lab tech (who can remember my name but never whether i want matte or glossy prints) what the difference in quality was between fuji and kodak film, and he said they are both pretty good, but where kodak adds another layer of red onto their film, fuji add another layer of blue/green. so i decided to try it.
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
if you don't have much light indoors it tends to make the extremely shaded areas blue-ish, but if you are taking shots in outdoor conditions, ESPECIALLY nature scenes, fuji film is DIVINE. i use 400 speed and the level of detail is incredible, as well as the minute gradations of tone and colour in everything in shot. it's incredibly beautiful. my lab also prints on fuji paper and suggested chemicals, so that probably helps, but seriously - if you have a choice in future, GO FOR FUJI. i always use a 400 speed film as well, so i can push my shots at further extremes.
it is amazing.
eta: keeping in mind that the scanner has lowered quality of tone and colour a little, here are a bunch of examples:
apologies also if they are over-sized... i'm not used to working on a 1024 resolution.
no subject
no subject
omg i'll never go back to kodak!
no subject
no subject
no subject
neg scanners are good, but it also depends on what brand/resolution/etc scanner you're using. you can get some great flatbed scanners with neg holder fittings that work wonders. epson put out some great scanners. neg scanning is also good because you get a better resolution than you do from a print (which is already a copy - by scanning a print, you're making a copy of a copy and losing more quality along the way), but yeah - it depends on your scanner, how far you can push it :)
no subject
I wonder whether Kodak is better for skin tones?
no subject
no subject
no subject
PS. my toenail polish is just starting to chip off!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Thanks for the reminder over at hopelens. When I tried to comment before, LJ was a wanker. These are breathtakingly lovely. I'm especially fond of the birds, and the one with the palms and the moon.
And the waves crashing over those rocks! Huzzah!!!
Awww. Now I miss the ocean.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-02-08 03:01 pm (UTC)(link)For what it's worth, Fuji film also claims to have no increase in grain from 100 to 400 speed, so anything you shoot with Fuji 400 you can enlarge nice and big without worrying about quality loss too much!
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-02-09 04:21 am (UTC)(link)no subject
As a former employee of Kodak I can finally say, that yes- Fuji is better. The colors are more vivid, and that blue/green layer really makes all the difference in the world.
no subject
no subject