P3D Best Film News Story

[Mike Sanders <mikesanders@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There was a recent news story about expensive film and processing
versus
cheap film and processing. The people doing the story bought a boat
load of
print film, from the very costly to the very cheap and took pictures
with
the assorted products. After processing, a distinguished panel of
professionals too a look at the results and judged things line grain,
sharpness and color. The amazing thing was the Cheapest Film and
Processing
was the clear winner in everyone's opinion. So much for Old 'Yeller.

Did anyone else see that story?

RM

If you see it on TV, it must be true.  Right?  I did see the story and
the final conclusions troubled me.  The cheap film was a Walgreen brand
and the Walgreen folks said it was made for them by Agfa.  But Agfa
people didn't know which film, because their generic stocks come from
many different sources.  So which "cheap film" was actually used in the
experiment?  We'll never know.

That's part of the problem comparing brand names with generics.  It's
not apples to apples.  Generics come from several different sources.
There is no baseline for meaningful comparison.

On another aspect, there were different categories of comparison by
usage.  Kodak Gold (it's cheapest film) scored best for outdoors shots,
but for indoor shots with flash, the professional panel liked the flesh
tones (no African-American subjects in those shots by the way) and
selected Kodak Royal Select (one of it's most expensive).  As I recall,
the Walgreen brand was picked as the best film for all uses.

Again, junk science yields many conclusions, enough to please the masses
who are lured into believing news reporters can conduct scientific
experiments and deliver valid conclusions.

Mike Sanders
(a former television reporter and producer)