Thank you, Kosma.

--- In konicaslr@yahoogroups.com, Kosma Moczek <kosma@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM,
> frankgranovski<frankgranovski@...> wrote:
> > Okay, now that Kodachrome is gone, what sharp color film do you suggest?
>
> A knowledgeable person (photography chemist/technician) told me to
> avoid Kodak films in general and go for Fuji materials. The reasons
> against Kodak were:
> - Kodak's 3-color-layer design vs. Fuji's 4 color layers
> - Lack of anti-curl layer
> - Bias towards marketing instead of technological advantage
> (especially with the recent release of Ektar 100*)
> - General lack of technological progress
>
> I'm slowly converting to B&W because of the ease of printing, but if I
> were to shoot color, I'd go for Fuji Velvia (for slides) and high-end
> Fuji films (Pro 160C, for example) for negatives. Fuji Reala 100 has
> nice, neutral color rendition, but it seems Fuji is taking it out of
> production.
>
> Also, recently I've tried Kodak Portra 400VC (vivid color, there is
> also NC for neutral color). Both of them have high saturation (despite
> the name suffix). I've not ordered any prints yet (scans only), so I
> can't give any real judgement right now. The medium format version of
> this film has tendency to curl *badly*, though, because it doesn't
> have the mentioned anti-curl layer.
>
> You might also try Kodak Ektar 100 or Kodak 200UC, although I don't
> like the way those two distort colors.
>
> > I had no idea that these cameras were expensive when the came out. Where
they more expensive than Nikons/Nikkors?
>
> Price history is available at JJ's website, unfortunately in French
> only (albeit an English translation is in progress):
>
> http://konica.awardspace.com/page35/page35.html
>
> * Ektar 100 name bears resemblance to Ektachrome and "old" Ektar, but
> they are totally unrelated. Ektar 100 is marketed as "great color,
> world's finest grain" film, but the results are not as great as Kodak
> claims.
>
> --
> Kosma Moczek
> http://www.kosma.pl/
>