Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,629   Online: 752
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21
    kb244's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    818
    Images
    63
    IF I remeber correctly, kodachrome was primarily used because it had excellent dark-storage life (tho not that great of a light-storage like how ektachrome has). Also last time I checked theres only 3 labs in the world that'll still process kodachrome.
    -Karl Blessing
    Karl Blessing.com
    The Bokeh
    Color Film always existed. It's just the world was always black and white till recently.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxi331
    Now I have to say, this is a funny statement Ed, I have never heard Kodachrome described this way, could you please define "Vintage" and "Modern" for me...

    If I could get a hold of some fresh ISO 25 Kodachrome, I guarantee you it would look as modern as anything around!

    LOL



    R.



    Tell me Ed, is this kodachrome retro, or is it modern film, this is a very low resolution scan, the image was taken in the field with a softfocus filter for a job I did a few years ago, tell me if it is "Vintage" or "Modern" film, it was used in a very large ad run here in the states.
    You said you were in photography for 25 years, and you don't see a difference between old emulsions and new ones?

    p.s. this image looks neither modern or vintage to me, because its so trivial

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxi331
    Well I have to disagree, if you know how to use the film, it does pop, I feel sorry for the younger photographers comming into the business, they will never understand what Kodachrome is, but if you knew how it worked, you could get it to pop, just as much as the super saturated films of today.

    R.
    It's not just saturation, saturation can be adjusted in photoshop. The characteristics that make an emulsion look vintage can't be emulated in photoshop, or at least I've never seen anyone acomplish it.

    It's difficult to describe such a thing. It has to do with a lot of things, the way highlights turn out, the way shadows look, the crossover, the skintones. Old emulsions have this wonderful "glow" that is hard to describe and emulate.
    Kodachrome still has that, and it's very obvious when you photograph formiliar things like people, cars etc. (and not so obvious when you photograph black backgrounds with an out of focus stain of color on top)

  4. #24
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Well Ed, thanks for you obviously well educated opinion, not that the image was posted for the purpose of critique, I am glad the client didn't think this was trvial, but trivial was not the question was it. By the way, there is a difference between soft focus and out of focus....the image was actually taken with a UV filter that had been smeared with vasaline, so as you call out of focus stain, was in fact done on purpose.

    Bye Ed, I leave you to your expert opinions..

    R.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxi331
    Well Ed, thanks for you obviously well educated opinion, not that the image was posted for the purpose of critique, I am glad the client didn't think this was trvial, but trivial was not the question was it. By the way, there is a difference between soft focus and out of focus....the image was actually taken with a UV filter that had been smeared with vasaline, so as you call out of focus stain, was in fact done on purpose.

    Bye Ed, I leave you to your expert opinions..

    R.

    I didn't say it's a bad image.
    It's just useless for comparing filmstocks, isn't it?
    A portrait or a cityscape is something where you can do that more easily.
    Our eyes are most sensitive to different "looks" when watching the human face because that's the object we are most formiliar with.

    p.s. What I'm about to say has nothing to do with our discussion, but I notice you judge yourself as a photographer through the opinion of your clients, who are probably not photographers. Maybe you should not do that for your own sake. People really pay for all kinds of things. Setting customers as your standard of quality is a pretty low standard to set for yourself, unless your customer is an art-director that hired you for some ad campaign.
    Isn't it?
    I'm sure your taste for art in general is probably 100 times more sophisticated than that of your avarage layman client. So why judge yourself based on their opinion instead of your own, and that of those similar to you?

  6. #26
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed_Davor

    p.s. What I'm about to say has nothing to do with our discussion, but I notice you judge yourself as a photographer through the opinion of your clients, who are probably not photographers. Maybe you should not do that for your own sake. People really pay for all kinds of things. Setting customers as your standard of quality is a pretty low standard to set for yourself, unless your customer is an art-director that hired you for some ad campaign.
    Isn't it?
    I'm sure your taste for art in general is probably 100 times more sophisticated than that of your avarage layman client. So why judge yourself based on their opinion instead of your own, and that of those similar to you?
    Ed,

    I don't judge my abilities as photograher based on my clients, I base my ability to eat on my clients willingness to pay, as far as my fine art photography and other work, I am very happy with that, I can see you have never worked in the commercial photography field..

    R.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Near Tavistock, Devon, on the edge of Dartmoor.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,018
    K64 - YES !!!!! (but not as good as K25 was)
    K200 - that's another story!!!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    397
    Haven not found a replacement for Kodachrome 25 and probably never will.

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    I don't know much about the process itself, but I do know that the chemicals used are extremely toxic. Much more so than the E6 process. That's a good reason to move to a different film. I have seen some Kodachrome 25 chrome prints that looked stunning, but the 64 and 200 look pretty average. I can understand the archival standpoint, however. Some slides shot in the beginning of transparency film hardly have any color dye left in them, while others have fared better. Kodachrome seems to be outstanding in this respect.

    Have fun in trying it,

    - Thom
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Gitchee Gummi
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by huggyviking
    I don't know much about the process itself, but I do know that the chemicals used are extremely toxic. Much more so than the E6 process. That's a good reason to move to a different film. I have seen some Kodachrome 25 chrome prints that looked stunning, but the 64 and 200 look pretty average. I can understand the archival standpoint, however. Some slides shot in the beginning of transparency film hardly have any color dye left in them, while others have fared better. Kodachrome seems to be outstanding in this respect.

    Have fun in trying it,

    - Thom
    Compared to the toxicity of the transportation, chemical, agricultural etc. etc. industries Kodachrome toxicity is a non factor in the scheme of things.

    Recent K64 under a J8. Regards.
    Last edited by Iskra 2; 09-28-2006 at 09:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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