In a message dated 9/5/2001 Roger Wesson writes:
<< I'd definitely agree with this, and not even at very high speeds.
400
speed slide film seems to me to have really chunky grain, far far worse
than 400 speed print film. A pro once gave me what seems like a
reasonable explanation - print film is vastly more popular than slide
film, and the most popular speed is 400, so 400 speed print film has
seen much more R&D than 400 speed slide film. >>
That is not entirely the case any longer now that Provia F 400 is
available. The stuff is pretty remarkable and many professional racing
photographers I know carry some of it "just in case" and for indoor work
(car shows and such). Keep in mind most of us that shoot slide film
shoot Velvia or Provia F, not 400 speed film. However, the stuff is
insanely expensive.
Where negative film really seems to shine is in better skin tone color
rendition and exposure latitude, as far as I know anyway (getting out of
my element now and there are better opinions on that here than mine
;-)...)
The manager at a retail branch of the local pro lab I use is an
ex-wedding pro who still shoots quite a bit for fun (not weddings
obviously) and he is a long-time OM user (MF and LF is his thing mostly
these days but he still owns and loves OMs too). (Phew, got some OM
content in here...) Suffice to say with his affinity for cars and OMs we
have become friends and I lean on him for advice. The negative films he
raves about are Fuji Realla and NPS for slower negative films, or NPH
for 400. I tried some of both (NPS and NPH) at Watkins Glen (concours
and banquet) and the results are very nice.
Most non-NASCAR racing photographer still shoot film. At NASCAR events
the digital to film ratio is perhaps 50/50ow though.
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|