NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/photo/24403

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!titan.ksc.nasa.gov!k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov!user
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 1600 Speed Kodak Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:30:20 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Nntp-Posting-Host: k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(MA.Picheny;340090) wrote:
> I want to take pictures of my daughters indoor gym meet; I am afraid my
> flash will not be good enough at long distances. Is this a good film for such
> a purpose? I have an Elan.


I've been very happy with Kodacolor Gold 1600.  It does have a little more
grain than Gold 400, but not much.

I've heard there is a Kodak EktaPress 1600.  You may ask about it at a good
Pro photo store.  EktaPress may be better than Kodacolor, from reports I've
read.

There is also a Konica ISO 3200 color-negative film.  I have tried a couple
of rolls.  The speed rating is probably accurate, but grain is much more
noticeable than with the Kodak films.  It may have been the printer setup,
but I didn't think the color was quite as good as with Kodak.

Something to consider - you may be asking too much of your film to
compensate for a weak flash.  Is it one of those low power built-in
flashes?  If so, I suggest you try to photograph a similar event in advance
of your daughter's gym meet.  You can use these "test" pictures to decide
if you need more horse-power, both in the flash and in the lens you plan to
use.

[e-mail]