Ditto for me re: Reala. For skin tones it seems to be to print film what
Velvia is to slide.
Joel W.
At 02:38 PM 2/9/2003 -0800, you wrote:
I've had some nice results using Portra 160 as just a "general purpose
film". I quite like it and it seems remarkably grainless for its speed. On
the other hand, I've had some results I've truly not liked with Reala. Not
sure I can be precise about why, but off the top of my head, it seems to me
to have some odd color shifts I've noted in bracketed exposures on
underexposed side, and it scans really badly in my Scanwit. Some of the
*worst* scans I have seen.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Wilcox [mailto:jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [OM] Portrait work: Reala or NPS 160??
I am starting to like Portra 160NC for general photography. It's like
Kodachrome in a print film. The grain at ASA 160 seems better than most
ASA 100 print films. Anyone else have this experience?
Joel W.
< 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 >
< 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 >
|