P3D Re: Best Film News Story

[Dan Vint <dvint@xxxxxxxx>]

As far as the film I use I'm pretty loyal to a few that I use all the time.
When it comes to processing, I figure a pro lab can scratch my images just
as well as the mass consumer labs - they just charge more for the
privilege! ;-)

I generally use CostCo or someone like that who offers a discount as long
as they don't mess up or loose my film - then I look elsewhere. I really
hate trusting my film to a lab that I have to deal with by US Post Office
because I figure it is just one more place to loose my film! I've had to
change this stance since getting into panoramics because my local and
commercial labs don't really handle the odd size for printing - but I do
have the local lab do the initial processing.

Best recommendation is to do your own test if you shoot enough film to make
a difference (which most of us probably do). Work with a consistent film
and processor and you will generally be able to tell if you, the camera, or
the processor had a bad day. Shot gun your use of film and processors and
you will never know where the problem is - or who/what gives you the best
results. Best control is of course to process and print yourself - but who
has that much time!

Anyway, my two cents worth.

..dan

At 09:04 AM 9/24/99 -0600, you wrote:
>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)
>

----------------------------------------------------
               __
              |_/\
            ,--,;\)
         ,-"-..._\
         \_...._( )
          |a a  )`|
      ___ /`._ / /     Dan Vint
  -==[___]\/;  \'      http://www.slip.net/~dvint
        `B-'|_`,) 
          <'/||8`>     
          __|::|       
         (__.';|       
             (_)