Re: New Article

[jeffs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Spirer)]

At 6:32 PM 9/16/96, Steve Traudt wrote:
>The new Shutterbug magazine (October 96) just came today and there is an
>article on SFX 200. The writer does a reasonable job of explaining it
>all, but I was amused how she was able to do such an article and never
>once mention Kodak HIE by name! Hummm....
>
>The photos accompanying the article are fairly bleak. In fact, if I was
>Ilford, I'd be pretty depressed. Apparently the author realized how poor
>they were as she said, at the very end, perhaps they'd be good for hand
>coloring! Anyway, you HIE fans need to worry.

I finally got my copy of Shutterbug and find that this comment completely
misrepresents what is said at the end of the article.  To quote exactly:

"For some reason, possibly the way in which greens and flesh tones are
rendered rather lightly, SFX 200 prints seem well-suited to hand coloring.
I am not the only person to have discovered this about IR films: Konica's
IR 750 also has a loyal following among hand colorists."

Also, the line that starts this paragraph indicates quite the opposite of
what Steve Traudt wrote  about SFX 200 being responsible for "poor"
photographs:

"This is an excellent film to try if you want to add drama, or simply
because your photography needs a lift..."

Also, regarding the pictures: the SFX 200 and the corresponding XP2 photo
of the same subject are equally poor.  As I said in another post, don't
ever believe that the photos in Shutterbug represent anything about
photography.

I don't want to start a flame war, but the original post seems to be so out
of context that it warranted comment.


Jeff
jeffs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.hyperreal.com/axiom/



------------------------------

Topic No. 7