If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Norwood" wrote in message ... In article , Rod Smith wrote: In article . net, "Jeremy" writes: The slides that were produced from those negs were not archival at all. I have many of them from the mid-70s where NO image is left. It is as though the images just vaporized, leaving only the base film left. That's an issue with the copy film they used, not the original negative film. I'd guess the copy film is the same stuff that's used for making prints from movie negatives, but that's just a guess. FWIW, my Dale and SFW slides from the mid-1980s still have good color. Maybe they improved the stock in the decade between our experiences, or maybe a massive decline occurs in the third decade, or maybe something about your storage method has affected the copy slides but not the Kodachromes that you say are fine. Assuming that the slides were made using motion-picture print stock.... The Eastmancolor motion-picture stocks were significantly changed in 1982, with the introduction of LPP (lowfade positive print) color, which, as far as we know today, does not fade when stored under decent conditions. Or at least prints made in 1982 and stored under room temperature and humidity have not faded (yet). Before LPP, Eastmancolor was a total disaster, fading to red/pink within a few years. In the late '70s until 1982, "SP" stock was introduced; the color on this is unstable--some SP prints look great today, while others have turned to an ugly brown shade. I'll add one complaint to your list: I've found that my ECN II negatives have more in the way of scratches than my C-41 negatives from the same period or before, so I suspect the stuff is less scratch-resistant. That's likely to be a processing issue, not a stock issue. I stopped using Eastmancolor emulsions during the time that 5247 had replaced 5254. Dale Labs is still hawking slides from color negative films (including any of the current consumer color films, not just cine films), and they are claiming superior slides, but I've never gone back to the "slides-and-prints-from-the-same-film" model. With the advent of digital photography and film scanners, I suspect that there is not much call for this product anymore. Kodak has discontinued manufacturing slide projectors, Kodachrome appears to be all but abandoned, and the connotation of the term "slide show" has changed to represent viewing a series of images on a computer screen. But, even back when I was still using Eastmancolor films, I remember that the colors were not as saturated, the skies were often washed out unless strong polarization was used when shooting, and there was low contrast overall. A far cry from Kodachrome 25. I discovered a box filled with 5254 and 5247 negs and their associated slides in my attic after having been there for 25 years. Many of the slides had no images at all, and the rest were badly deteriorated. It was as though the slides were made with disappearing ink--the images were barely viewable, and there was no color to speak of. I used 3 different processors, and all of my slides have deteriorated at the same rate, so it does not appear to be related to who processed the film and made the slides. If one really wants quality slides then they should stick to a good slide film. The "prints-and-slides" model might be all right if the slides are not critical. Slides from negatives are not nearly as satisfying as slides from slide film. I can't say much in defense of Eastmancolor or other cine films used in still photography applications. My major gripe is this: I bought good (expensive) equipment, I strived to use proper technique, I exposed accurately, and I ended up with a product that was in some ways inferior to that produced by a guy with a simple box camera. I failed to recognize that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I sacrificed many images, and memories, for having been complacent. Think twice before committing to cine films for still photos. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Norwood" wrote in message ... In article , Rod Smith wrote: In article . net, "Jeremy" writes: The slides that were produced from those negs were not archival at all. I have many of them from the mid-70s where NO image is left. It is as though the images just vaporized, leaving only the base film left. That's an issue with the copy film they used, not the original negative film. I'd guess the copy film is the same stuff that's used for making prints from movie negatives, but that's just a guess. FWIW, my Dale and SFW slides from the mid-1980s still have good color. Maybe they improved the stock in the decade between our experiences, or maybe a massive decline occurs in the third decade, or maybe something about your storage method has affected the copy slides but not the Kodachromes that you say are fine. Assuming that the slides were made using motion-picture print stock.... The Eastmancolor motion-picture stocks were significantly changed in 1982, with the introduction of LPP (lowfade positive print) color, which, as far as we know today, does not fade when stored under decent conditions. Or at least prints made in 1982 and stored under room temperature and humidity have not faded (yet). Before LPP, Eastmancolor was a total disaster, fading to red/pink within a few years. In the late '70s until 1982, "SP" stock was introduced; the color on this is unstable--some SP prints look great today, while others have turned to an ugly brown shade. I'll add one complaint to your list: I've found that my ECN II negatives have more in the way of scratches than my C-41 negatives from the same period or before, so I suspect the stuff is less scratch-resistant. That's likely to be a processing issue, not a stock issue. I stopped using Eastmancolor emulsions during the time that 5247 had replaced 5254. Dale Labs is still hawking slides from color negative films (including any of the current consumer color films, not just cine films), and they are claiming superior slides, but I've never gone back to the "slides-and-prints-from-the-same-film" model. With the advent of digital photography and film scanners, I suspect that there is not much call for this product anymore. Kodak has discontinued manufacturing slide projectors, Kodachrome appears to be all but abandoned, and the connotation of the term "slide show" has changed to represent viewing a series of images on a computer screen. But, even back when I was still using Eastmancolor films, I remember that the colors were not as saturated, the skies were often washed out unless strong polarization was used when shooting, and there was low contrast overall. A far cry from Kodachrome 25. I discovered a box filled with 5254 and 5247 negs and their associated slides in my attic after having been there for 25 years. Many of the slides had no images at all, and the rest were badly deteriorated. It was as though the slides were made with disappearing ink--the images were barely viewable, and there was no color to speak of. I used 3 different processors, and all of my slides have deteriorated at the same rate, so it does not appear to be related to who processed the film and made the slides. If one really wants quality slides then they should stick to a good slide film. The "prints-and-slides" model might be all right if the slides are not critical. Slides from negatives are not nearly as satisfying as slides from slide film. I can't say much in defense of Eastmancolor or other cine films used in still photography applications. My major gripe is this: I bought good (expensive) equipment, I strived to use proper technique, I exposed accurately, and I ended up with a product that was in some ways inferior to that produced by a guy with a simple box camera. I failed to recognize that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I sacrificed many images, and memories, for having been complacent. Think twice before committing to cine films for still photos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji... | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 63 | October 24th 04 06:07 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Help: Newbie 35mm Film Question | Keith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 04 06:26 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |