Quote Originally Posted by snaggs
Boy oh Boy is there a difference! Shoot it at 320 and watch your photo's EXPLODE. Its very nice film if you want the Velvia look (IMHO, its even more saturated in colours).

The only one issue I had, is with asian skin tones.. my wifes face went a little yellow/green in a couple of photos. The Kodak film lacks the fourth colour layer of the Fuji films, so there is more trade off to the colour correction.

Another film to try is Fuji 800 NPZ, its awesome too. Whilst not in the super saturated camp, its not just a boring normal look, it has what I term a "degrassi street" flavor.... a little romantic with a touch of Kodachrome...

Your note has inspired a thought.As Fuji comes from a land where oriental complexions appear in most people photos, could there be a connexion between Fuji's use of a fourth layer and the problem allegedly exhibited by Kodak which does not come from a land in which most people have oriental complexions? I say allegedly on the grounds that the very slight caste may be peculiar to that print and not Kodak as a whole.

Or is this just a case of me "adding 2+2 and getting 5". I took a photo of my son in the garden on a sunny day with Fuji and he looked more tanned than he actually was. So does Fuji add a punch to complexions which balances a yellow green caste found in oriental complexions.

I wonder what Kodak would say about your theory on oriental complexions and their film.

Does any technical guru out there have any scientific explanation which supports the above theory or equally makes it nonsense?

My only other experience was with Fuji in Cyprus - western complexions very punchy and Kodak Portra in the UK - western complexions much more muted BUT the Fuji was 35mm and the Kodak was Portra 120 and weather conditions were much different. So not a good comparison.I suppose the test would be for you to take as near as possible the exact same pictures with a Fuji film and compare. If you do I'd be very interested in the results.