In my own pictures from 2001, I noticed that the Fuji
1600 film (Fujicolor 1600 I think) has hyped
saturation. What I call "cartoon color", where
caucasians take on the cast of a sienna basketball.
This is _not_ the case with Fujipress 1600, and I've the images to prove
it. From what I've seen of its use, Fujipress 800 looks to be, if anything,
just a bit more saturated (though I couldn't prove that). In any event, to
my eye at least the result from both speeds falls well within bounds of
"photorealistic." As the X-TRA emulsions are said to be cut from the ends
of same bulk reels of film stock I don't understand why there should be any
appreciable difference between one stock and another.
The X-TRA I've used (including the 800) gives very good results. It is
somewhat saturated but reasonable. Overall the balance in just about any
mixed-light setting (I assume that's the only reason you'd buy it) is as
good as you're going to get.
For the rest of it (ignorance in camera shops): the only one I've access to
in Scotts Valley is run by a gentleman who 1) doesn't realize that Kodak
has changed Tri-X (he told me "As far as I know it's just new packaging")
and 2) keeps his Kodachrome 64 on the open shelf ("I've never bothered to
store in the cooler" he told me matter-of-factly).
Anyway, you should have good results with that Fujipress 1600. I'm gonna
try the 800 stuff when my current cache of 1600 runs out. I like what I've
seen of it, though I hate to surrender that extra stop. Finer grain, though.
Tris
< 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 >
|