Re: Kodak E-200?

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen wrote:
> Has anyone tried Kodak E-200, either 120 or 35mm (or the Fuji
> equivalent, if there is one) ?
> 

I brought two rolls of 120 E200 with me on my recent trip to New
England and upstate New York.  The intended purpose was
astrophotography.  Michael Covington (author of "Astrophotography for
the Amateur") has lots of good things to say about E200.  In his tests
it does not show any reciprosity error on exposures up to 2 minutes
long.  It also has much better color responce than the new Fuji 400
speed slide film (which was ruined by recent "improvements").  He also
recommends pushing E200 2 stops for an effective speed of ISO 640.
(Note: astrophotography benefits from the contrast increase caused by
push processing and slide duplication.)

I shot astrophotos with the first roll in my Yashicamat 124G and had
the lab do the recommended 2 stop push.  The photos turned out very
nice.  The lack of sprocket holes sure makes it tough to figure out
where the frame boundaries are.  :)

I loaded the second roll in my Sputnik to use at a Sheep Dog Demo at
the Dutchess County Sheep & Wool Festival.  Unfortuantely I think I
forgot to reset my light meter to ISO 200.  All the frames came back
very washed out.  At first I thought that this was due to flare and
light leaks with the Sputnik (all the shots were into the Sun on a
Sunny day without the case or lens shades).  When I noticed that this
was the only roll of ISO 200 film I used with the Sputnik I began to
have doubts about my meter setting.

In the astrophotos E200 seems less grainy than Ektachrome 400.  I
definitely plan on trying more E200 in the Sputnik (as well as for
astrophotography).

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"