Kodachrome: worth a look

ColinD wrote:
Bowser wrote:

"ColinD" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical
value, but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I
didn't when I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might
be smooth, and have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors
artificial, and nowhere near what a good digital image can provide
today.

I was at an anniversary dinner last night, a choir group that had
been going for 90 years and for whom I had done some photography over
the last 15 or so years. They put up a gallery of shots over the
years, and I was literally appalled at the shocking color and
tonality of some of my earlier images. When I went digital in 2004,
the choir shots from that time on were just fabulous, excellent color
and tonality, sharpness and sheer clarity. I think we just got used
to the film look and it has taken good digital photography to show
how mediocre film could be - and that with a 6 MP camera.

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi gear,
until they heard a better system going, after which they couldn't
stand their erstwhile gear. Same story.

While I can certainly understand not liking the film, I got some great
images from it. When properly shot, I loved the color and tonality, as
well as the fine grain. And my decades-old chromes are as good as new.

Hey, why don't we do a special shoot-in category and ask people to
post their favority Kodachrome shots? Yes, the color will depend on
the scanner's ability to extract the look from the film, but it might
be interesting to see what some of us have stored away in the archives.

Great idea. Then I could show one or two of my old kodachromes and see
what reaction they get

Probably more than you? ;-)

Bowser wrote:

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi gear,
until they heard a better system going, after which they couldn't stand
their erstwhile gear. Same story.

Strange you should mention that.....The audio quality of good vinyl has
always been, (and still is) much better than the digital CD's. I can still
remember a 78 RPM record of, "Hernando's Hideaway" that I had back in the
60's......I have yet to hear anything as good as that recording, Unless it
was a live performance......It's reality and presence was remarkable, and it
certainly beat the pants off of anything on a modern CD.

Noons wrote:
ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 1/07/2009 10:03 AM:

So I guess I should say that results I had from local processing
didn't do the film justice.

but that has never stopped you from telling everyone who wants to listen
that "film can only do 6mp" or whatever crap you got way back when.
Nothing like mis-information to promote your digital crap sales, eh?


And of course that film was the best lasting of the available films,
thanks to the non-substantive emulsion which allowed better dyes than
could be obtained from the dye-coupled development of other films.
But processing was the key to good color - and was totally outside the
control of the photographers.


Says he who has never tried one of the later E6 emulsions...

Don't talk to me about E6 and Ektachrome - I've got 12-year-old E6
slides commercially processed, and the color is totally stuffed beyond
repair. NO substantive film has/had the long life of Kodachrome.

Fresh trannys from E6 might be ok, but their lasting quality on a scale
of 1 to 10 is about a 2.

You do realise, I suppose, that modern, i.e. recent emulsions are
designed for good color to last long enough for scanning to digital,
after which the film is left to rot. Longevity of film is not a
requirement now.

I'd like to see one of your E6's after 30 or 40 years, as claimed for
Kodachrome.

Here's an equation for you:

Noons/2 = bull****^2

Colin D.

Bill Graham wrote:

Bowser wrote:

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi
gear, until they heard a better system going, after which they
couldn't stand their erstwhile gear. Same story.

Strange you should mention that.....The audio quality of good vinyl has
always been, (and still is) much better than the digital CD's. I can
still remember a 78 RPM record of, "Hernando's Hideaway" that I had back
in the 60's......I have yet to hear anything as good as that recording,
Unless it was a live performance......It's reality and presence was
remarkable, and it certainly beat the pants off of anything on a modern CD.

Rose-colored memories, Bill. 78 rpm shellac recordings with strength 9
surface hiss, the microphones of 50 years ago, distortion from the
pickup being at an angle to the groove, the sheer mechanical limitations
of physical recording, pitch change with motor speed, rumble from the
turntable, wow from mini-speed changes, pops and clicks from surface
damage on the record, etc. etc.

The modern CD is quieter, has less distortion, no rumble, no wow, no
pitch change, much greater dynamic range and recording time - an hour or
more on a CD - and if you accept the slightly lower quality of MP3 up to
10 hours or so on one CD, no mechanical limitation in the recording
process - except of course microphones which today are far better than
those of half a century ago.

Other improvements like stereo sound, followed by surround sound and
other spatial techniques just make the audio experience better. Even
speakers are better today, with ceramic magnets having field strengths
much greater than those of 50 years back; likewise solid state
amplifiers are more powerful, have less harmonic distortion and much
better damping factors (to control speaker cone movement)

Although I am of a similar age to your good self, Bill, I cannot agree
with your sentiments about vinyl/shellac records.

Regards,

Colin D.

PS: The line you quoted above was mine, not Bowser's.

On 7/1/2009 4:22 PM ColinD spake thus:

Bill Graham wrote:

Strange you should mention that.....The audio quality of good vinyl has
always been, (and still is) much better than the digital CD's. I can
still remember a 78 RPM record of, "Hernando's Hideaway" that I had back
in the 60's......I have yet to hear anything as good as that recording,
Unless it was a live performance......It's reality and presence was
remarkable, and it certainly beat the pants off of anything on a modern CD.

Rose-colored memories, Bill. 78 rpm shellac recordings with strength 9
surface hiss, the microphones of 50 years ago, distortion from the
pickup being at an angle to the groove, the sheer mechanical limitations
of physical recording, pitch change with motor speed, rumble from the
turntable, wow from mini-speed changes, pops and clicks from surface
damage on the record, etc. etc.

You're picking the worst cases and ignoring the best.

Instead of 50-year-old mikes and such, try this: listen to a fairly
modern (late 1980s) London digital recording (digital to tape), a
perfect pressing with *no* surface noise and very few pops (because I
take very good care of my records). No discernable rumble because I have
a very good turntable (Thorens). Same with wow and flutter; none for all
practical purposes. (Amazing what a simple belt-driven turntable will
do!) I'd stack this recording up against *any* CD you can come up with.
This is waaaaaay beyond your shellac straw man.

(The record in question is Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra and Dance
Suite, played by Chicago under Solti. Incredible performance, wonderful
recording.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 01-07-09 18:44, ColinD wrote:

Don't talk to me about E6 and Ektachrome - I've got 12-year-old E6
slides commercially processed, and the color is totally stuffed beyond
repair. NO substantive film has/had the long life of Kodachrome.

I've got 15 yr old E-6 that has not visibly degraded at all. It's kept
in cool, dark, relatively dry conditions, but nothing special.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 01-07-09 18:44, ColinD wrote:

Don't talk to me about E6 and Ektachrome - I've got 12-year-old E6
slides commercially processed, and the color is totally stuffed beyond
repair. NO substantive film has/had the long life of Kodachrome.

I've got 15 yr old E-6 that has not visibly degraded at all. It's kept
in cool, dark, relatively dry conditions, but nothing special.

Hello Alan,

Well, overall, I have quite a lot of film stored, in glassine or 35mm
sleeves, and kept in the dark in an internal cupboard in my house. I'm
not too sure about saying that the images look ok to the eye. I
recently had occasion to scan some ektacolor and kodacolor negatives
that were shot in Macau around 1998. They 'looked' fine, but they
scanned horribly, with deep magenta shadows and greeny-yellow mid and
lighter tones, practically useless without extensive color correction,
and even then they did not look good at all.

I wonder if some people in this group have actually scanned old
negatives that 'looked' fine, and what results they got.

The scanner BTW calibrates up ok, and newish negs produce great scans,
but older negs, not so good.

Of course this may well be down to the neg processing, specially where
'stabilizing' was used instead of a good old-fashioned wash. I have
never liked that idea, but with commercial processing you take what you get.

I am much happier with digital, where the entire process is under my
control, and where images don't degrade with copying or storage, and
diligent care is taken with backup techniques.

Colin D.

ColinD wrote:
Fresh trannys from E6 might be ok, but their lasting quality on a scale
of 1 to 10 is about a 2.

You do realise, I suppose, that modern, i.e. recent emulsions are
designed for good color to last long enough for scanning to digital,
after which the film is left to rot. Longevity of film is not a
requirement now.

I'd like to see one of your E6's after 30 or 40 years, as claimed for
Kodachrome.


Fujichromes, starting about 1984 and not even kept in an especially cool
place (summer temperatures around 40° C), look absolutely perfect.

But if *YOU* say they won't last, then that *must* be true....

ColinD wrote:
I
recently had occasion to scan some ektacolor and kodacolor negatives
that were shot in Macau around 1998. They 'looked' fine, but they
scanned horribly, with deep magenta shadows and greeny-yellow mid and
lighter tones, practically useless without extensive color correction,
and even then they did not look good at all.

I wonder if some people in this group have actually scanned old
negatives that 'looked' fine, and what results they got.


It's called basic scanning skills...

(just like your old film results just *might* have something to do with
basic photographic skills)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 7/1/2009 4:22 PM ColinD spake thus:

Bill Graham wrote:

Strange you should mention that.....The audio quality of good vinyl
has always been, (and still is) much better than the digital CD's. I
can still remember a 78 RPM record of, "Hernando's Hideaway" that I
had back in the 60's......I have yet to hear anything as good as that
recording, Unless it was a live performance......It's reality and
presence was remarkable, and it certainly beat the pants off of
anything on a modern CD.

Rose-colored memories, Bill. 78 rpm shellac recordings with strength
9 surface hiss, the microphones of 50 years ago, distortion from the
pickup being at an angle to the groove, the sheer mechanical
limitations of physical recording, pitch change with motor speed,
rumble from the turntable, wow from mini-speed changes, pops and
clicks from surface damage on the record, etc. etc.

You're picking the worst cases and ignoring the best.

Instead of 50-year-old mikes and such, try this: listen to a fairly
modern (late 1980s) London digital recording (digital to tape), a
perfect pressing with *no* surface noise and very few pops (because I
take very good care of my records). No discernable rumble because I have
a very good turntable (Thorens). Same with wow and flutter; none for all
practical purposes. (Amazing what a simple belt-driven turntable will
do!) I'd stack this recording up against *any* CD you can come up with.
This is waaaaaay beyond your shellac straw man.

(The record in question is Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra and Dance
Suite, played by Chicago under Solti. Incredible performance, wonderful
recording.)

I don't doubt it's superb.

But the statement, "The audio quality of good vinyl has always been,
(and still is) much better than the digital CD's." is majorly wrong.

--

John McWilliams