Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,423   Online: 803
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,229
    Images
    60
    At one time National Geographic's Kodachrome lab (yes, they had their own dedicated lab) processed the highest volume of still photography Kodachrome film in the world.

    My question for the OP is - are there photographs in the publication that are shot on other slide films, and if so, how well are they reproduced?
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #12
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    46
    Another question....

    Did the photographers in the example photos you saw use a tripod?

    In case the shots were from magazines with amateur contributors, at ASA 25, without a tripod, unless the photographer was very careful, the shots would be likely have some blur.

  3. #13
    Paul Goutiere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canmore Ab Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    603
    Images
    10
    Kodachrome has a "bas relief" effect on the emulsion surface.
    It is quite noticeable if you hold the slide at a obligue angle when viewing the emulsion surface.
    I use a Nikon CS9000 scanner and I have found focus to be a problem when using the dedicated slide tray.

    The problem seems to be solved by removing the slide from the it's holder and using Nikons FH869GR glass holder.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    Excellent discussion here folks, thanks...

    In terms of the blurry quality I see, it does not appear to be an issue of focus (though perhaps that should not be ruled out), but a combination of sharpness, shadow detail, and overall resolution. The shortcomings in these three areas make for a print that looks blurry, especially in comparison to the various digital shots shown on the same page.

    With regard to a tripod, there is no indication as to whether a tripod was used. I use a tripod for about 80-85% of my shots, but I have gotten excellent results, ranging from "sharp" to "very sharp," when shooting hand-held. Of course, one has be be prudent in regard to shutter speed, aperture, and lighting conditions, but any good photographer should know this.

    I also note that the film shots in this periodical will also (though not in all cases) look dull and rather monotone--and this comes from one who despises overly saturated films. For my color shots, I prefer Portra 400 and Pro 400H, and I find "vivid" films to be rather neon-looking. I avoid these films.
    Last edited by FilmOnly; 03-20-2012 at 02:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,353
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    Excellent discussion here folks, thanks...

    In terms of the blurry quality I see, it does not appear to be an issue of focus (though perhaps that should not be ruled out), but a combination of sharpness, shadow detail, and overall resolution. The shortcomings in these three areas make for a print that looks blurry, especially in comparison to the various digital shots shown on the same page.

    With regard to a tripod, there is no indication as to whether a tripod was used. I use a tripod for about 80-85% of my shots, but I have gotten excellent results, ranging from "sharp" to "very sharp," when shooting hand-held. Of course, one has be be prudent in regard to shutter speed, aperture, and lighting conditions, but any good photographer should know this.

    I also note that the film shots in this periodical will also (though not in all cases) look dull and rather monotone--and this comes from one who despises overly saturated films. For my color shots, I prefer Portra 400 and Pro 400H, and I find "vivid" films to be rather neon-looking. I avoid these films.
    There is no question that it is the reproduction that is lacking, I've noticed this in books and magazines.
    If you have never seen a good Kodachrome slide in person, by all means find some and get them projected. It will be a revelation, and keep in mind, it's just a tiny little 35mm frame. I also have several dozen rolls of 6x7 slides, on Kodachrome 64 PKR 120.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    272
    I have not worked with Kodachrome, but have scanned thousands of E-6 slides on various devices, as well as having them professionally scanned. I have never seen a single scan that comes close to the quality of the original. Invariably, the saturation, contrast and tonality of the image all suffer. While some of this can be compensated for, the best end result will always be poor facsimile.

  7. #17
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    Kodachrome has been said to be a difficult emulsion to scan well; something to do with the red channel. But if you want to see how good the quality of traditional scan reproduction is, you need only go back 20 to 40 years reading Time and National Geographic where thousands upon thousands of Kodachrome slides were shot around the world and scanned so beautifully as to hold everybody in a bewitched state. I know that's how I felt in the 70s and 80s, long before the faux purity and sharpness of digital landed.

    I have attempted to scan some of my Kodachrome slides from the 1980s but cannot get the hues right. I don't have this difficulty with Fuji/E6 slides.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Kodachrome has been said to be a difficult emulsion to scan well; something to do with the red channel.
    I wonder if the Photomultiplier tubes and Quartz-Halogen illumination of the drum scanners vs a fluorescent bulb of the current genre had anything to do with it...

  9. #19
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I wonder if the Photomultiplier tubes and Quartz-Halogen illumination of the drum scanners vs a fluorescent bulb of the current genre had anything to do with it...
    Maybe. It was photogravure or something in those days — traditional image-to-plate preparation, and the printed results were uniformly beautiful, showcasing the best photographers' work in possibly the best medium of that era.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  10. #20
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Goutiere View Post
    Kodachrome has a "bas relief" effect on the emulsion surface.
    It is quite noticeable if you hold the slide at a obligue angle when viewing the emulsion surface.
    I always enjoyed looking that that layered look of a Kodachrome in reflected light.
    I suppose there is some truth to that being a problem with "scanners".

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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