A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kodak 'High Definition' film?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 30th 05, 06:51 AM
m II
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak 'High Definition' film?

I picked up two rolls today..iso 400

Anyone with any experience with this film? It must be a slow mover, as the
expiration date is later this year, so it must have been on the shelf for a
while. I'm wondering if there's a reason..





mike
  #2  
Old April 30th 05, 03:51 PM
Woodchuck Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

m II wrote in
news:c1Fce.12774$vN2.2448@clgrps13:

I picked up two rolls today..iso 400

Anyone with any experience with this film? It must be a slow
mover, as the expiration date is later this year, so it must have
been on the shelf for a while. I'm wondering if there's a reason..


It is essentially the same emulsion as Royal Gold 400, the latest
version of that film. Good stuff.

--

Bill
  #3  
Old April 30th 05, 03:51 PM
Woodchuck Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

m II wrote in
news:c1Fce.12774$vN2.2448@clgrps13:

I picked up two rolls today..iso 400

Anyone with any experience with this film? It must be a slow
mover, as the expiration date is later this year, so it must have
been on the shelf for a while. I'm wondering if there's a reason..


It is essentially the same emulsion as Royal Gold 400, the latest
version of that film. Good stuff.

--

Bill
  #4  
Old May 1st 05, 03:01 AM
Cardamon Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kodak tinkered with its very good Royal Gold 400 to boost contrast a
little, hence creating the sharper "high definition" appearance. It's
very good film for a zoom-lens camera. Buy it and freeze it, because I
don't know how much longer it'll be around.

-Cardamon Dave

  #5  
Old May 1st 05, 03:01 AM
Cardamon Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kodak tinkered with its very good Royal Gold 400 to boost contrast a
little, hence creating the sharper "high definition" appearance. It's
very good film for a zoom-lens camera. Buy it and freeze it, because I
don't know how much longer it'll be around.

-Cardamon Dave

  #6  
Old May 1st 05, 04:02 AM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cardamon Dave wrote:
Kodak tinkered with its very good Royal Gold 400 to boost contrast a
little, hence creating the sharper "high definition" appearance. It's
very good film for a zoom-lens camera. Buy it and freeze it, because I
don't know how much longer it'll be around.


Walmart still sells Ultra Color 400 for $11 a 3-pack (Target gave up).
Ultra Color 400 is the best film Kodak makes in that speed range,
although Portra 400NC is lower contrast and maybe better for weddings.

High Definition 400 is grainier, especially for skin tones. It's fine
if you don't have many people in your photos, and it's better than Max.
Personally I wouldn't waste my time shooting it.

  #7  
Old May 1st 05, 04:02 AM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cardamon Dave wrote:
Kodak tinkered with its very good Royal Gold 400 to boost contrast a
little, hence creating the sharper "high definition" appearance. It's
very good film for a zoom-lens camera. Buy it and freeze it, because I
don't know how much longer it'll be around.


Walmart still sells Ultra Color 400 for $11 a 3-pack (Target gave up).
Ultra Color 400 is the best film Kodak makes in that speed range,
although Portra 400NC is lower contrast and maybe better for weddings.

High Definition 400 is grainier, especially for skin tones. It's fine
if you don't have many people in your photos, and it's better than Max.
Personally I wouldn't waste my time shooting it.

  #8  
Old May 1st 05, 08:30 AM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think it was not overly successful. It is merely goosed up in contrast
and is not actually in any way "high definition".

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"m II" wrote in message
news:c1Fce.12774$vN2.2448@clgrps13...
I picked up two rolls today..iso 400

Anyone with any experience with this film? It must be a slow mover, as the
expiration date is later this year, so it must have been on the shelf for

a
while. I'm wondering if there's a reason..





mike



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500? tomviolin Digital Photography 230 April 15th 05 12:03 PM
Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji... Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 63 October 24th 04 06:07 AM
Antarctica print film tortoise Film & Labs 70 September 27th 04 10:55 PM
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 94 June 23rd 04 05:17 AM
Kodak's High Definition Film [email protected] APS Photographic Equipment 8 December 10th 03 04:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.