> Has anyone ever tried this type film? It's called Kodak Max Zoom 800. I
> picked up the roll that was still in date and thought I'd give it a try
> at my son's next football game. If anything good comes out of them I'll
> try to show them.
>Good shooting,
>Smitty
It's really quite good. The grain is comparable with the 400 speed films of
10 years or so ago. It's really quite amazing the improvements in negative
films in the last few years.
>I tried a couple of rolls of this a year or so afgo and it was just
>plain awful! VERY grainy and clumpy grain to boot. I hear it has been
>vastly improved since then, and some list members spoke favorably of the
>new version. It it worth a try, but be sure you have the new stuff and
>not the old!
>Jim Couch
Absolutely! The first emulsion, called simply Max 800, was truly awful,
worse than Fuji 1600. The newer film is identified as Max _Zoom_ 800, and is
greatly improved.
>I've shot many, many rolls of Eastman 5247 (now replaced by 5248) over the
>years however, and always have been very pleased with it.
You must be the only one. I've not tried the 5248, but the older stock was
grainy, much more so than comparable speed still film. I've seen this to be
the case in general, cine film seems to be more grainy. Most used to be type
B, is that still the case?
I have also seen some recent films with remarkable outdoor color. Could this
be the Fuji emulsion?
On the subject of storage, there was an article in Photo Techniques about
six months ago, by the venerable Ctein, that examined this very subject.
After substantial experiments, as only Ctein can, he found that heat damaged
film very little. This is, of course, at substantial odds with many list
member's experience. The article bears reading.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|