«

4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.

http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/

I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.

What makes them nice?

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:08:31 +1100, Rob wrote:

> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>
> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>
> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>
> What makes them nice?

I think if you use a good prime lens and a full frame DSLR and do some
digital editing you can replicate the quality and look of these photos.

What makes them special? Has to be the quality of course, plus the
capturing of historic moments long gone. I have to say the colours look
nice but are not faithful.

I shoot film once in a while just to get that old look, I am too lazy to
process digital photos to that extent.


DanP

petre <> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:08:31 +1100, Rob wrote:
>
>> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>
>I think if you use a good prime lens and a full frame DSLR and do some
>digital editing you can replicate the quality and look of these photos.
>
>What makes them special? Has to be the quality of course, plus the
>capturing of historic moments long gone. I have to say the colours look
>nice but are not faithful.
>
>I shoot film once in a while just to get that old look, I am too lazy to
>process digital photos to that extent.


Use Instagram. It does it all for you.

Kodachrome had a certain 'look'. I agree the colours are not
faithful, but very few colour films were, and ever fewer digital
cameras on their factory JPEG . There is the same desire for
over-vivid sharpness, contrast settings and colour as the one that
dominated the TV industry in the 1960s/70s.

The other thing that hits you about Kodachrome is the high resolution.
For several decades, slow Kodachrome offered the highest detail and
finest grain of any colour film available. In that respect, it was
surpassed only by a very few Fujichrome emulsions and that happened
only relatively recently.

On 12/1/2012 6:15 AM, petre wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:08:31 +1100, Rob wrote:
>
>> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>
> I think if you use a good prime lens and a full frame DSLR and do some
> digital editing you can replicate the quality and look of these photos.
>
> What makes them special? Has to be the quality of course, plus the
> capturing of historic moments long gone. I have to say the colours look
> nice but are not faithful.
>
> I shoot film once in a while just to get that old look, I am too lazy to
> process digital photos to that extent.
>
Try shooting at a 14bit color depth, at the lowest ISO your camera can
handle.


--
Peter

On 12/1/2012 12:10 PM, George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 12/1/12 3:08 AM, in article k9cheu$b7e$, "Rob"
> <> wrote:
>
>> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>>
> There is a warmth and richness with film that is impossible to get with
> straight digital. Also, the artificial lighting set up in those shots
> WITHOUT any Polaroid tests, etc., are simply amazing! Only with VERY careful
> setting of lighting ratios could those be done with the unforgiving latitude
> of Kodachrome. The photographers of those days were TRUE craftsmen to be
> able to pull off such excellent images. The photographers today could not
> even "carry those guys jockstrap".
>
>

And European wines, made pre-phylloxera and not grafted were much
superior to present ones . There must be a word describing the
unprovable "good old days" even if it is still possible to buy
photographic film I presume.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:10:50 -0600, George Kerby wrote:

> On 12/1/12 3:08 AM, in article k9cheu$b7e$, "Rob"
> <> wrote:
>
>> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>>
>>
> There is a warmth and richness with film that is impossible to get with
> straight digital. Also, the artificial lighting set up in those shots
> WITHOUT any Polaroid tests, etc., are simply amazing! Only with VERY
> careful setting of lighting ratios could those be done with the
> unforgiving latitude of Kodachrome. The photographers of those days were
> TRUE craftsmen to be able to pull off such excellent images. The
> photographers today could not even "carry those guys jockstrap".
>
> As Len Goodman would say: "10"!!!

I agree with that. Ask an amateur today to use the same film with an
automatic exposure camera, give him the best lens money can buy and the
results will not match those old photos.


DanP

On 12/1/2012 11:49 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>
> And European wines, made pre-phylloxera and not grafted were much
> superior to present ones . There must be a word describing the
> unprovable "good old days" even if it is still possible to buy
> photographic film I presume.
>

And LPs are so much more musical than CDs ...
Never mind the clicks, pops, static, low dynamic range, etc.

Change happens; get over it.

Dave S.

On Dec 1, 4:08*am, Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
> 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>
> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>
> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>
> What makes them nice?

You just need a digital camera that makes everyone look like they have
jaundice.

RichA <> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 4:08*am, Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
>> 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>
>You just need a digital camera that makes everyone look like they have
>jaundice.


No shortage of those on the market, and no shortage of people who
haven't the faintest idea how to use them.

RichA <> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 4:08*am, Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
>> 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
>>
>> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/20...5-kodachromes/
>>
>> I would still struggle to get this quality with digital.
>>
>> What makes them nice?
>
>You just need a digital camera that makes everyone look like they have
>jaundice.


What alternative would *you* have chosen from the range available at
that time?