film quality for different speeds

wrote:
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.

Reala is a 100 ISO film, only !
I love it for the color rendition

--
Photographie http://www.monochromatique.com

On Dec 5, 10:57 pm, RobertL wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:52 pm, "Norm Fleming" wrote: "H.S." wrote in message

-Free...

Unless you are planning to do the dark room work including optical
printing

(or high resolution film scanning/digital printing) yourself, don't bother.
It you take your film for commercial processing these days, the film will be
developed and digitally scanned at the lowest possible resolution, and you
will be given very poor quality digital prints that have no detail
whatsoever, noticable pixels and wierd colours and look like something
produced in your grandpa's bathroom in the 1950s.

yes, I notice this particularly because I use an antique stereo viewer
which likes 6x4 inch prints. Because these are enlarged by the
viewer you become very aware of the resolution of the scanned image.
not surprisingly, prints are done at a resolution appropriater for
normal viewing at the chosen size. In the past, prints seem to have
had a resolution much better than the naked eye could detect.
I have notice a lack of detail, but I don't think it is all in how
they can the film, part is that the printers don't seem to produce
really sharp prints regardless of the input.

There is a test I did, scanning a print I got from Costco and the same
image printed on my cheap inkjet printer.
This first scan was don't at 300ppi on both prints and a 10% crop
taken from each.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89043062

It is easy to see that the Costco print does not come close to having
300ppi of detail in it.

This is the same prints scanned at 600ppi.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89043066

The inkjet printer is only a 4 color one, which is why it looks so
gainy, but it clearly has far more detail then the Costco print.

Now the old days of optical prints often did even worse,
This is a scan I did of an old negative with overlay of a scan of the
print we got from it, this would have been from around 1989 or so.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/36102779/original

The print was pure crap, and without going back an looking carefully
at the negative it would be easy to assume the camera was simply not
focused.

I also found that mini-labs were hit and miss with exposure of the
print.
I got this print back from then and it looked like I way over exposed,
a scan of the print is below
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45161464

But a scan of the negative shows that there the print was just not
printed correctly.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45161465

What I ended up with was to get any kind of consistency with film I
needed to scan it. But scanning film is a pain in the ass and I like
the images I get from my digital camera better anyway, so the choice
was easy, no more film shooting for me.

Scott

On Dec 6, 2:47 pm, "Daniel Rocha" wrote:
wrote:
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.

Reala is a 100 ISO film, only !
I love it for the color rendition

--
Photographie http://www.monochromatique.com

Yeah, sorry about that. The film I'm thinking about is Fuji Superia X-
TRA. Merci beaucoup Daniel.
Helen

On Dec 6, 2:47 pm, "Daniel Rocha" wrote:

Reala is a 100 ISO film, only !
I love it for the color rendition

Dude, did you just say what I think you said?
There may be hope for you after all, Rocha!

Lovely colors film

Daniel Rocha wrote:
wrote:
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.

Reala is a 100 ISO film, only !
I love it for the color rendition