[rollei_list] Re: looks like it is the end for Agfa

On 5/28/05 6:30 PM, "David Seifert" <dseifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:

> Jerry,
> 
> I wish you well getting your negs printed on a more compatible machine.
> Remember, however, that Agfa Portrait 160 is/was a VERY low contrast
> film with very soft colors.  I used it a couple times for portaits and
> it did tame harsh lighting quite a bit but I would hesitate to choose it
> for general work.  Just too soft.
> 
> David
> 
When Kodak or Fuji says a film is for "portrait" (but not "Portra" which
just sounds like it's portrait but its only your imagination) it also tends
to mean it's too soft for anything. Including portrait.
Its only been a little more than a decade when we've had very many
professional non ultra soft options.
To get a "commercial" look you'd need to shoot amateur films.
Like Fujicolor 100, a long dead stupendous film or the Kodak gold.
Vericolor pro was a living nightmare.

Portrait equals wedding by the way.
And they say it's skin tones but the real reason is so they can machine
print them and still get the white dress and the dark hair. With no dodging
and burning. And they'll throw a Softar or worse on it to make it even
muddier. Go to one of those portrait photographers conventions its enough to
make you retch.

But now with scanning it doesn't matter if they say its hard or soft or
ultra saturated or the reverse. It easily all comes out looking very viable.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/




---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: