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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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..... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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....:^) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
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! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Kodachrome ArKives
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodachrome | ChrisQuayle | 35mm Photo Equipment | 39 | December 19th 06 10:57 PM |
Kodachrome and X-pan? | mr. chip | Film & Labs | 7 | November 18th 04 03:50 PM |
Kodachrome and X-pan | Stuart Droker | Film & Labs | 0 | November 9th 04 10:24 PM |
"Kodachrome" used as an adjective | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | August 15th 04 03:44 PM |
Kodachrome 120? | Lunaray | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 5 | February 24th 04 12:13 AM |