[rollei_list] Re: looks like it is the end for agfa
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:45:22 -0700
John,
Thanks for the info.
Y'know, up to the multi-roll disaster with the Agfa Portra 160, I have
never had any problems with the Fuji Color Printer setup. But I had
been using Kodak film of all types, including the Royal and Ultra Color.
I can't recall what Agfa film was sold by Costco under the Kirkland
name, but even that was superb when printed on the Fuji machine.
I wish they did 120 film, as I have a few rolls of 120 Ultracolor that
i would love to try in my 2.8F.
Jerry
"John A. Lind" wrote:
> At 09:00 PM 5/28/2005, Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> >David,
> >
> >That is my feeling exactly. I will NOT forget my experience with
> >that film.
> >
> >Another nail in AGFA's coffin.
> >
> >Jerry
>
> Jerry,
> Most of the professional negative films are relatively soft . . . the Agfa
> you used is intended for portraiture and wedding work when the softness of
> contrast is generally desirable. You would likely have gotten similar
> results from Kodak's Portra 160 NC which has a very wide latitude . . . so
> as not to lose highlights in white dresses or details in black tuxes right
> next to them . . . and relatively low saturation to maintain pleasing skin
> tones. The print materials pro labs generally use with the Agfa's
> Portrait, Kodak's Portra and Fuji's equivalent are (in general) more suited
> for the films as well . . . knowing it is used for wedding and
> portraiture. All that said . . . I prefer Kodak's Portra 160 NC for
> portraiture . . . the only Kodak color film I use aside from Kodachrome and
> Ektachrome 160T.
>
> For color negative, you might wish to try (one roll) of Kodak's Ultra Color
> 100 (formerly Portra 100 UC). It wasn't to my particular liking (I shot
> two rolls of it) . . . I shoot nearly all chrome for things I would want
> the higher saturation . . . but you may find it better suited for what
> you're doing. If you're using 35mm, then try Kodak's High Definition 200
> (used to be Royal Gold 200). It has a different character compared to 100
> UC. You might have to order it as all I can find locally is High
> Definition 400 which is noticeably grainier and doesn't withstand large
> enlargement that well (its speed is also is problematic for me in bright
> sunlight; pushes me to teeny-tiny apertures with high shutter speeds . . .
> no depth of field control).
>
> I've also found that if color balancing is off in printing, in nearly any
> direction, it can make prints look dull and lifeless.
>
> -- John Lind
>
> ---
> 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
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
