Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've enjoyed listening to the reminiscing, but you are discussing the second or third version of Kodachrome. Back in 1952-54, it was just called Kodachrome, and rated at ASA 10 (there was also a version for artificial light). The best low-light images required blue flashbulbs. Here is one of those: http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Cigar+Box/Donna02sm+53.jpg.html Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA On 1/25/2016 5:48 PM, Tina Manley wrote: > Yes, I do see the difference in the actual slides. For many years, > photographers chose their slide films based on what they were shooting and > what color palette and film speed and grain structure they could get with > certain films. I used Kodachrome almost exclusively up until Kodak turned > the processing over to Qualex. Qualex ruined Kodachrome processing and > routinely sent me slides contaminated with chemical splotches, cut between > the frames, and severely over or under developed. I gave up, bought a Jobo > processor and switched to all E-6 films. I came to like some of them - > Provia and Astia in particular - but none of them ever equaled my old > Kodachrome 64 :-( Gone but not forgotten!! > > Tina > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:42 PM, lluisripollphotography < > lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Tina, >> >> If you look at the original slides or you project them, do you appreciate >> such tonal differences? in my opinion the tonal range on the original >> slides is better than the results when its scanned. I agree with you that >> Velvia made great tones for the landscapes and Kodachrome for the skin >> tones, when I scan I have similar problems and with Ektachrome the tonal >> range trend to blue. >> >> Lluis >> >> >> >> >>> El 26 gen 2016, a les 0:31, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> va >> escriure: >>> Thanks, Lluis. I think that is a characteristic of Kodachrome. I've >>> always loved the skin tones that you get with Kodachrome, but I prefer >>> Velvia for landscapes. Could that be it? >>> >>> Tina >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, lluisripollphotography < >>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Tina, >>>> >>>> For me this one is an example of cold colors, I don?t find the words to >>>> define why they look for me more unreal than the pictures with warm >> colors >>>> <http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/162411109> >>>> >>>> and this one of warm colors, in my opinion these colors looks much more >>>> natural and rich as they are >>>> >>>> <http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/162410997> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Lluis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> El 25 gen 2016, a les 23:49, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> va >>>> escriure: >>>>> Can you give me an example of the cold colors not working? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Tina >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 4:54 PM, lluisripollphotography < >>>>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tina, >>>>>> >>>>>> Already commented, but I insist. The images with warm colors, as well >>>>>> those of Faviana, works perfect in the scanning process, the colors >>>> look as >>>>>> they are, but on the images with cold colors, green or light blue, >>>> reflect >>>>>> unreal colors, If in the same image are warm and cold colors and the >>>> warm >>>>>> ones has an important proportion on the global image the overall color >>>> of >>>>>> the image is good. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the question we was talking yesterday, why? It looks as the >>>>>> scanner make a wrong reading of white balance with cold colors? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can someone explain this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Lluis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> El 24 gen 2016, a les 0:20, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> va >>>>>> escriure: >>>>>>> PESO: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A few more Kodachromes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/2016&page=3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C&C greatly appreciated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tina >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Tina Manley >>>>>>> http:// >>>>>>> < >> http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgfmKYPW4WzBHl3Mx_9dW3LqWkM56dQ1Jf7P8b5b02?t=http%3A%2F%2Ftina-manley.artistwebsites.com%2F&si=6038418186567680&pi=540dc834-a12f-44bb-d194-a3440df02c0a >>>>>>> www.tinamanley.com >>>>>>> http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tina Manley >>>>> http:// >>>>> < >> http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgfmKYPW4WzBHl3Mx_9dW3LqWkM56dQ1Jf7P8b5b02?t=http%3A%2F%2Ftina-manley.artistwebsites.com%2F&si=6038418186567680&pi=4382a6dd-cd2b-4dae-8427-0eb4c74e348f >>>>> www.tinamanley.com >>>>> http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tina Manley >>> http:// >>> < >> http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgfmKYPW4WzBHl3Mx_9dW3LqWkM56dQ1Jf7P8b5b02?t=http%3A%2F%2Ftina-manley.artistwebsites.com%2F&si=6038418186567680&pi=77d3bac8-a2bf-4de4-f769-915f6bcf3c8f >>> www.tinamanley.com >>> http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > >