Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,920   Posts: 1,522,065   Online: 817
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    I consider myself blessed because I need so little film.
    When it comes to photography, I spend most of the time daydreaming and visualising photographs, and little time actually realising those images, I only realise the ones I'm sure are going to come out great. I always want to make every frame count.
    I guess I'm sort of a conceptualist by nature, I walk and see some kind of interesting scenery, like Ivy on the wall or whatever, and I'll walk a thousand times imagining it in all kinds of light before I capture it. I'd be most satisfied If I were invisible, so that I may bring a van full of light equipment and light it all like I want it.

    I feel really bad when I get a roll from processing and find a whole bunch of snapshots on it, and only a few photographs that I would consider art.
    I hate junk photography. Well I like other peoples "junk" photography, I really do , but I hate my own.
    When someone else makes a snapshot it always feels more valuable, than my own.
    And now that I've switched to MF, it's even worse. There is nothing as hearbraking to me as to see a giant LF transperency containing a junk shot, what a waste of material, what great detail revealing boring objects.
    I've had my MF camera for a few days now, and so far I've made only 3 images. I thought 12 frames is going to be a problem (little room). Now I can't
    seem to get rid of my first test roll, because I can't stand such a large piece of film being exposed to nonsense.

    For me 10 rolls is a LOT of film. (a couple of months of shooting)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Steve,

    I suspect -- no-one actually knows -- that the permanence issue is no longer decisive. My wife has family Kodachromes (including quarter-plates!) going back to the 40s and I have had access to the collection of HH Dalai Lama from the 50s. Next to anything else, and indeed next to my own earliest Ektachromes from the 60s, Kodachrome survives very well (subject, as you say, to the cardboard mount problem).

    But E6 has delivered equal or better quality for many purposes for a decade or so. When I say 'for many purposes' I'm not talking about 'almost good enough for some shots', I'm talking about 'better for many of the colours, scenes and effects I want to capture'. This is admittedly subjective, but what isn't?

    Well, longevity isn't, but there's not many as can do reliable accelerated aging tests. Admittedly 'reliable accelerated aging tests' is a bit of an oxymoron, but I'm willing to take a chance on it. I've not shot Kodachrome for years and don't miss the palette or the fine grain: I prefer other colours (especially the late, lamented RF/RFP) and there's plenty of fine-grain E6 around today. Nor do I miss the expense or the hassle of getting Kodachrome processed.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    Roger: I find your comment that a photographer being "defined" (whatever that means) by a single film is a poor photographer puzzling. Are you saying that a photographer who deliberately chooses to use one film, for whatever his/her reasons, but does great, great work ... is a "poor" photographer?

    You have repeatedly said that one's preference for a film, whether Kodachrome, and E6 is subjective. I find the "poor photographer" so subjective as to be meaningless. I can't figure out the difference.

    PKM-25: FWIW, I applaud and am excited by your project. I am a real lover of Kodachrome. Hell, I was disturbed when K-II was replaced by K-25 ... K-25 just didn't look like K-II!

    I have a small stash of K64 (amateur emulsion) that I bought last year when the local Eckerds was clearing it out. I also have a couple of rolls of K25 that I got for the price of shipping from an APUG member. I'll be looking for more Kodachrome to stock up. I'm already in pre-mourning for its passing. Whether it is "better" or "superior" is irrelevant, a silly discussion, and way OT from your original post. It is unique and historically important.

    Earl
    Rochester, NY, home of Kodachrome
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Yes to the E-6 equation. But when you look past what you want to capture and take into account what others want to, you might find that there is a certain look that is attained in specific circumstances that yield a result that you simply can't get in any other medium. I have been shooting for 30 of my 39 years, I have seen it. And I have seen it in other's works too and they say the same thing.

    I read you loud and clear about what your preferences are and why. But do you understand that their are some who see it differently and that might hold some weight too?

    Surely you you can applaud a project that might be giving a great film a great tribute....right?

    To not would be severely close minded.

    [QUOTE=Roger Hicks]
    But E6 has delivered equal or better quality for many purposes for a decade or so. When I say 'for many purposes' I'm not talking about 'almost good enough for some shots', I'm talking about 'better for many of the colours, scenes and effects I want to capture'. This is admittedly subjective, but what isn't?

    Well, longevity isn't, but there's not many as can do reliable accelerated aging tests. Admittedly 'reliable accelerated aging tests' is a bit of an oxymoron, but I'm willing to take a chance on it. I've not shot Kodachrome for years and don't miss the palette or the fine grain: I prefer other colours (especially the late, lamented RF/RFP) and there's plenty of fine-grain E6 around today. Nor do I miss the expense or the hassle of getting Kodachrome processed. [QUOTE]

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear PKM25,

    Sorry, I did not mean for one moment to belittle the project, which I think is an excellent idea. It was more in the nature of a sigh at the transience of all things (except perhaps early Kodachromes as compared with their competitors). I wish you the very best of luck with it.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Earl,

    I fear you have misunderstood me; I apologize for not making myself clearer.

    What I meant is that while it is entirely rational to choose any film that you like, be it Kodachrome or anything else, it is foolish in the extreme to define yourself in terms of that film: "I shoot only Kodachrome" or "I shoot only FP4," because sooner or later, those films will vanish or at least change. He is indeed a poor photographer, by any definition you choose, who allows himself to be defined as a only a Kodachrome photographer or whatever. I never intended to accuse PKM25 of this.

    By all means be a photographer who is happiest with, or who gets his best pictures from, Kodachrome (or Ilford XP2 or Super-XX or anything else), and by all means mourn its passing; but consider also the new opportunities offered by new films -- because you won't have the choice of the old one forever.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    Roger: Ah! Much clearer, now I understand. One of my mantras is to learn a tool (such as a camera or film) so well that it basically becomes part of my "photogrphy being". With that, emotional attachment often comes, which can be a problem. To be blind to other possibilities is, indeed, foolish.

    For me, I need to immerse myself in the use of a particular film to feel that I am its master. All about balance.

    Cheers from Rah-cha-cha,

    Earl
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  8. #28
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Earl Dunbar
    Roger: Ah! Much clearer, now I understand. One of my mantras is to learn a tool (such as a camera or film) so well that it basically becomes part of my "photogrphy being". With that, emotional attachment often comes, which can be a problem. To be blind to other possibilities is, indeed, foolish.

    For me, I need to immerse myself in the use of a particular film to feel that I am its master. All about balance.

    Cheers from Rah-cha-cha,

    Earl
    Earl,

    As you know, many things in photography can be like that- regarding being blind to other possibilities. In fact what comes to mind for me is going out to take photos with a subject or idea in mind and not remembering to remove the blinders to respond to something presented right in front of me.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  9. #29
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,882
    Images
    34
    I must admit that, beyond their photographic virtues, I have a sentimental attachment to three films, Kodachrome, which captured most ot my childhood and was the first slide film I used (or even knew about - I remember when my dad started trying Ektachrome, mostly for the higher speed); Verichrome Pan, which is the first black and white film I learned to develop; and Tri-x, which is the first 35mm black and white film I really learned to use. When I came back to serious photography after a long break a few years back, I was sad to see Verichrome being phased out. But at least it was pretty easy to switch to Plus-x, which I had used before in 35mm. And I have acquired a taste for many others since, including APX100, which I was really developing an interest in when Agfa went under. But I have yet to find a slide film that I like as much as Kodachrome, or that seems to go as well with the old cameras I use a lot of the time.

  10. #30
    htmlguru4242's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sandy Hook, CT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    973
    I do hope that there's a while left with Kodachorme. I just got another box of slides back from processing (took almost a month .... argh ...), but, as always, I'm amazed by the clarity, sharpness and color. You just CAN'T beat it with E-6 films. Sure its expensive and inconvenient to have processed, but it's still worth it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin