The last vote… each of these 400 speed films at 3200! The only light in the room is the 40 watt compact florescent in the lamp behind Eve… talk about crappy light!
All negatives were scanned on an Imacon Scanner as a 3F linear file with no sharpening… essentially a RAW scan.
All images were processed exactly the same in Photoshop. All images were captured with my Nikon FM3a and a 50mm f1.2 AI lens… in this case at F 1.2… bit slow on the shutter speed… hand held. Both files were made so the film edge would read black.
Tell every photographer you know to vote on this as the results will be very informative for our Figital community and will be covered in my fourth and final post on this review on Novemember 23, 2010… vote now!!
Vote Now!!!!
Figital Revolution 
Sorry, but this is a poorly conceived test. You’re shooting daylight films, so the colors here are awful. You’ve also lost shadow detail, so it’s clear that you’ve pushed these films too far.
I dont know where to start with this one but you don’t always have a choice as to which film you have loaded in your camera when a shot arrives and as there is no “negative florescent film” made how could it not be valid… it is showing the far reaches the film is capable of and that is all….
Hep – have to agree that ‘Dismayed’ doesn’t really have an argument. Like you say, there is no ‘artificial’ lighting film so this is a ‘real world’ test. As for pushing the film too far, would you rather have lost the shot? I have done exactly this at 11pm at night under artifical lighting where I had to expose at 3200 in order to get anything at all. The results pleased the client – what more do you need 🙂