Re: [APML] PJ400 vs E200 (was New Images Posted)

["Bobby Middleton" <bobm@koyote.com>]

You will get better blue response and won't get the hint of magenta cast
that is common with unhypered PJ400. I like the hypered on everything.
Bobby M

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian <focus@linkus.net>

> Hi Bobby,
> What happens to PJ when you hyper it?  Do any of the colors shift or
> anything?  I bought  a load of it in 12 exposure rolls.   Is it better on
> certain objects unhypered?
> thank you
> Brian Sledz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bobby Middleton <bobm@koyote.com>
> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:05 AM
> Subject: [APML] PJ400 vs E200 (was New Images Posted)
>
>
> > From: Kolb, Jon <jkolb@noochee.com>
> >
> > > I think PJ400 picks up blue better than E200, but not by all that
much.
> > > E200 seems to pick up green a lot better than PJ400, and gives redder
> reds
> > > in my opinion.  Both are excellent films for astrophotography.
> >
> > Since these two films are probably the "premier" films we use, I just
> > thought I would add my agreement to Jon's analysis of the differences in
> > their recording power. Other differences are:
> > somewhat faster speed and better sensitivity for the PJ, and finer grain
> for
> > E200. Having a good scanner to scan the slides plus needing to hyper the
> PJ
> > for optimum performance are also considerations.
> > Bobby Middleton
> >
> >
> > --  APML Archives at <http://www.system.missouri.edu/apml/>  ---
> >                 Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
> >
>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://www.system.missouri.edu/apml/>  ---
>                 Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>


--  APML Archives at <http://www.system.missouri.edu/apml/>  ---
                Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>