![[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
(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)