Kodachrome ArKives

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Now that digital photgraphy has taken over the snapshot, sports and
commerical photography markets, it is likely that the color films
which remain will slowy migrate to look like it as tastes change.


In seesnce digital has little "look", compared to color film. It really
has only one essential characteristic that gives a "look", and that is
the relative response of the three color filters. That is essential.
The only other thing is the nature of the noise in dark areas, and
that will eventually go to "pure photon statistics" as the electronics
improve. Other than than, if one saves as raw, you get a fine linear
representation of the original subject, and all else is your decision in Photoshop.

(Of course, there is also how you manage to get the image to a visible form,
yes, the methods of doing that do change the image, but except for resolution
RGB computer graphics is so far superior to print media that nothing else matters.)

Doug McDonald

Doug Jewell wrote:

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

Buy a couple rolls of Kodachrome and take pictures of what's
around you while you still can.

Absolutely. And I am. A day off with nice weather and a roll of
Kodachrome
in my pristine Nikon F2. Lord, it don't get any better than that.

I've been able to wean myself off everything else Kodak -- except
Kodachrome. I can't bring myself to walk away from it. Kodak will
have to
take it away. And when they do, I'll cry like a baby.
Sadly for us here in Australia, and probably most of the non-USA world,
Kodachrome is effectively no longer available. I'm sure I probably could
find some if I looked hard enough, but sending it to the USA for
processing makes it more pain than it is worth. Still think it probably
ranks as the best colour film ever made, but various Fuji chromes are
almost as good, and can be _reasonably_ easily processed (for me it
requires mail order to a city about 200km away, but that's better than
sending it to the other side of the planet).

Which Kodachrome films are left. I know 25 is gone, but I'm not sure if
64 or 200 have been discontinued.

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Now that digital photgraphy has taken over the snapshot, sports and
commerical photography markets, it is likely that the color films which
remain will slowy migrate to look like it as tastes change.


In seesnce digital has little "look", compared to color film. It really
has only one essential characteristic that gives a "look", and that is
the relative response of the three color filters. That is essential.
The only other thing is the nature of the noise in dark areas, and
that will eventually go to "pure photon statistics" as the electronics
improve. Other than than, if one saves as raw, you get a fine linear
representation of the original subject, and all else is your decision in
Photoshop.

(Of course, there is also how you manage to get the image to a visible
form,
yes, the methods of doing that do change the image, but except for
resolution
RGB computer graphics is so far superior to print media that nothing else
matters.)

Doug McDonald

And the saturation of the color TV's is adjustable too.....My wife likes it
very saturated (to the point where the reds, "bloom") But I back off on the
color control until it is almost a black & white image.....

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Doug Jewell wrote:

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

Buy a couple rolls of Kodachrome and take pictures of what's
around you while you still can.

Absolutely. And I am. A day off with nice weather and a roll of
Kodachrome
in my pristine Nikon F2. Lord, it don't get any better than that.

I've been able to wean myself off everything else Kodak -- except
Kodachrome. I can't bring myself to walk away from it. Kodak will have
to
take it away. And when they do, I'll cry like a baby.
Sadly for us here in Australia, and probably most of the non-USA world,
Kodachrome is effectively no longer available. I'm sure I probably could
find some if I looked hard enough, but sending it to the USA for
processing makes it more pain than it is worth. Still think it probably
ranks as the best colour film ever made, but various Fuji chromes are
almost as good, and can be _reasonably_ easily processed (for me it
requires mail order to a city about 200km away, but that's better than
sending it to the other side of the planet).

Which Kodachrome films are left. I know 25 is gone, but I'm not sure if 64
or 200 have been discontinued.

Kodachrome 64 is still available....Here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Kodachro.../dp/B0000520IT

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message ...
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Now that digital photgraphy has taken over the snapshot,
sports and
commerical photography markets, it is likely that the
color films which remain will slowy migrate to look like
it as tastes change.


In seesnce digital has little "look", compared to color
film. It really
has only one essential characteristic that gives a
"look", and that is
the relative response of the three color filters. That is
essential.
The only other thing is the nature of the noise in dark
areas, and
that will eventually go to "pure photon statistics" as
the electronics
improve. Other than than, if one saves as raw, you get a
fine linear
representation of the original subject, and all else is
your decision in Photoshop.

(Of course, there is also how you manage to get the image
to a visible form,
yes, the methods of doing that do change the image, but
except for resolution
RGB computer graphics is so far superior to print media
that nothing else matters.)

Doug McDonald

And the saturation of the color TV's is adjustable
too.....My wife likes it very saturated (to the point
where the reds, "bloom") But I back off on the color
control until it is almost a black & white image.....
If you are looking at NTSC color (standard definition,
non digital TV in the USA) there is actually a proper
setting for the saturation. The problem is that you need a
color bar signal and a way to turning off all but the blue
gun of the picture tube. In addition, many sets have a color
matrix which tends to make the reds too hot. This is a left
over from a time when the original phosphors were changed.
The newer phosphors did not reproduce red as well as the
earlier ones (but lasted longer and were brighter) so a
correction circiut was introduced. These are _never_ used in
the television broadcasting plant (I do TV for a living), so
its common for the color to either burn through on red or be
undersaturated for everything else. Digital TV doesn't have
this particular problem but has a whole set of vices all its
own, some of which are worse.

Many years ago I had a chance to see a lot of original
Techicolor prints dating to the beginning of the three color
version. There was a lot of variation at first color ranging
from just pouring off the screen to being quite subtle.
Producers and audiences seem to have liked the high
saturation version. Actually, color saturation is very easy
to control in the Technicolor dye transfer printing process.
If it was gaudy its because the people paying for it wanted
it that way.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
ink.net...

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Now that digital photgraphy has taken over the snapshot, sports and
commerical photography markets, it is likely that the color films which
remain will slowy migrate to look like it as tastes change.


In seesnce digital has little "look", compared to color film. It really
has only one essential characteristic that gives a "look", and that is
the relative response of the three color filters. That is essential.
The only other thing is the nature of the noise in dark areas, and
that will eventually go to "pure photon statistics" as the electronics
improve. Other than than, if one saves as raw, you get a fine linear
representation of the original subject, and all else is your decision in
Photoshop.

(Of course, there is also how you manage to get the image to a visible
form,
yes, the methods of doing that do change the image, but except for
resolution
RGB computer graphics is so far superior to print media that nothing
else matters.)

Doug McDonald

And the saturation of the color TV's is adjustable too.....My wife likes
it very saturated (to the point where the reds, "bloom") But I back off
on the color control until it is almost a black & white image.....
If you are looking at NTSC color (standard definition, non digital TV
in the USA) there is actually a proper setting for the saturation. The
problem is that you need a color bar signal and a way to turning off all
but the blue gun of the picture tube. In addition, many sets have a color
matrix which tends to make the reds too hot. This is a left over from a
time when the original phosphors were changed. The newer phosphors did not
reproduce red as well as the earlier ones (but lasted longer and were
brighter) so a correction circiut was introduced. These are _never_ used
in the television broadcasting plant (I do TV for a living), so its common
for the color to either burn through on red or be undersaturated for
everything else. Digital TV doesn't have this particular problem but has a
whole set of vices all its own, some of which are worse.

Many years ago I had a chance to see a lot of original Techicolor
prints dating to the beginning of the three color version. There was a lot
of variation at first color ranging from just pouring off the screen to
being quite subtle. Producers and audiences seem to have liked the high
saturation version. Actually, color saturation is very easy to control in
the Technicolor dye transfer printing process. If it was gaudy its because
the people paying for it wanted it that way.

Yeah....I am always bitching about lack of control....The manufacturers of
equipment don't trust the consumers enough to give them control over their
stuff, because they will get too many returns from people who can't do their
own adjustments....So they hide certain important adjustments in the
electronics so we consumers can't screw with them.....My monitor is this
way. there are a bunch of things that I know I could adjust if I had the
controls to do so, but I don't, so I have to either live with the problems
or send it back to the factory, where they would charge me more than a new
monitor to adjust it......But isn't that the story of life in general? - The
society is built around the stupid, so the intelligent have to suffer under
restrictive rules and regulations that are designed to keep the stupid from
screwing up. Furthermore, as I grow older, I am rapidly becoming more and
more, "stupid" about the newer equipment myself, so pretty soon I will have
"joined" the other side, and will need simplified equipment myself in order
to keep from screwing it up....:^)

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip

If you are looking at NTSC color (standard definition, non digital TV
in the USA) there is actually a proper setting for the saturation. The
problem is that you need a color bar signal and a way to turning off all
but the blue gun of the picture tube. In addition, many sets have a color
matrix which tends to make the reds too hot. This is a left over from a
time when the original phosphors were changed. The newer phosphors did not
reproduce red as well as the earlier ones (but lasted longer and were
brighter) so a correction circiut was introduced. These are _never_ used
in the television broadcasting plant (I do TV for a living), so its common
for the color to either burn through on red or be undersaturated for
everything else. Digital TV doesn't have this particular problem but has a
whole set of vices all its own, some of which are worse.

Isn't it true that "NTSC" actually stands for "Never Twice the Same Color"?!

(Sorry, my broadcast background is in radio, where the picture is always
correct!)

--
Ken Hart

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:34:02 -0500, "Ken Hart" wrote:


"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
link.net...

snip

If you are looking at NTSC color (standard definition, non digital TV
in the USA) there is actually a proper setting for the saturation. The
problem is that you need a color bar signal and a way to turning off all
but the blue gun of the picture tube. In addition, many sets have a color
matrix which tends to make the reds too hot. This is a left over from a
time when the original phosphors were changed. The newer phosphors did not
reproduce red as well as the earlier ones (but lasted longer and were
brighter) so a correction circiut was introduced. These are _never_ used
in the television broadcasting plant (I do TV for a living), so its common
for the color to either burn through on red or be undersaturated for
everything else. Digital TV doesn't have this particular problem but has a
whole set of vices all its own, some of which are worse.

Isn't it true that "NTSC" actually stands for "Never Twice the Same Color"?!

(Sorry, my broadcast background is in radio, where the picture is always
correct!)

*And* the image is always user-adjustable!

"Richard Knoppow" wrote
many sets have a color matrix which tends to make the reds too hot. This
is a left over from a time when the original phosphors were changed.

Thanks, always wondered why that was. I just got used to pastel
colors, the only way to keep the red from blooming. Is it possible
to easily defeat this 'feature'?

"Ken Hart" wrote

Isn't it true that "NTSC" actually stands for "Never Twice the Same
Color"?!

It certainly does.

Another great invention of RCA, the folks who invented:

o The 8-track tape,
o 45 rpm records - RCA recorded symphonies on them but
the music cut out abruptly for 10 seconds every three
minutes while the record changed.
o The capacitive video disk: a video disk that had a tone arm, a
needle and a grooved record, guess how well it worked
o NTSC
o ... other flops too numerous to mention ...
o and don't ask about FM radio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com