Re: OT - Slide film (was: Auzzie.rail catching up.)

["Mark Bau" <mbauco@earthlink.net>]

----------
In article <3A2A21A0.7C47DBFA@ozemail.com.au>, James Brook 
<ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote:


> Michael wrote:
>>
>> If you are considering going into slide film at all. I mostly use Fuji
>> Sensia 100. Have found it to be a good cost effective film at $8.95 per
>> roll - while it's not as sharp as I'd like it to be, it's colours are far
>> better than it's Kodak counterpart, Elite Chrome 100 or whatever they name
>> it today. During the darker months, I use a combination of Sensia 200 and
>> Sensia 400.
>>
>
> The Elitechrome slides you have seen haven't been processed correctly. I
> have found that photo labs tend to process it with a strange blue tone.
> If you send it into Kodak the colours are almost identical to the
> Fujichrome. My dad took a backlit photo of a V/Line pass N in bright
> sunlight on Elitechrome and sent it into Kodak. I took an almost
> identical photo at the same location (ie: about 2 feet apart) on
> Fujichrome Sensia II 100 and got it processed at Micheals in the city.
> There was only a very slight difference, ie: you had to have the two
> pictures next to each other to see it. Even so, I could not really
> choose between the two as they were so close. The only reason I have
> changed to the Fujichrome Sensia 100 is because of Kodak's really crappy
> processing. Ie: sometimes there are large scratches right through entire
> rolls. :-(
>
> --
> - James Brook -


I have found that all of Kodak's consumer Ektachromes are appreciably more
contrasty than Fuji 100. Its almost as if they are trying to mimic the
limited contrast range of Kodachrome 64.

Mark