Vintage film reviews?

[GarageBoy]

Sorting through a buncha old Shutterbug magazines that I need to toss (water damaged and no space) and I was wondering - are there any scans of film reviews from when the films were new?

Found this for TMAX 3200 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-04-15/entertainment/8803090202_1_max-film-ei

 

[RattyMouse]

Sorting through a buncha old Shutterbug magazines that I need to toss (water damaged and no space) and I was wondering - are there any scans of film reviews from when the films were new?

Found this for TMAX 3200 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-04-15/entertainment/8803090202_1_max-film-ei

Great review. Too bad Kodak could not keep this film alive. Was Delta 3200 really that much better?

 

[Kirks518]

Pop Photo did reviews of film every so often. Here's a link to the Feb 89 issue that has "Film Wars" as the cover story/photo: http://books.google.com/books?id=g7zQvJ5CnHcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My favorite 35mm film along with also discontinued Fuji Neopan 1600. Sigh... Delta 3200 has grain that is much larger, but at least equal resolution. It looks great too, but even portraits looked great on TMZ...

 

[GarageBoy]

I've only been sc*nning, but Delta 3200 is a little less hot on the highlights / a tad less contrasty

I wish more magazines had archives available

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've only been sc*nning, but Delta 3200 is a little less hot on the highlights / a tad less contrasty

I wish more magazines had archives available

Yes, the Delta 3200 is a film that has to be developed longer to achieve normal contrast than TMZ or Neopan 1600.