Anyone come across this yet?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Rob, Dec 1, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    petre Guest

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

    > 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
    >
    > http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-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, Dec 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. petre <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:08:31 +1100, Rob wrote:
    >
    >> 4×5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
    >>
    >> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-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.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 1, 2012
    #3
  4. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    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/2012/03/28/4x5-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
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #4
  5. 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/2012/03/28/4x5-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.
    James Silverton, Dec 1, 2012
    #5
  6. Rob

    DanP Guest

    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/2012/03/28/4x5-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
    DanP, Dec 1, 2012
    #6
  7. Rob

    DaveS Guest

    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.
    DaveS, Dec 1, 2012
    #7
  8. Rob

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 1, 4:08 am, Rob <> wrote:
    > 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
    >
    > http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-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, Dec 2, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA <> wrote:

    >On Dec 1, 4:08 am, Rob <> wrote:
    >> 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
    >>
    >> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-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.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 2, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA <> wrote:

    >On Dec 1, 4:08 am, Rob <> wrote:
    >> 4 5 Kodachromes anyone remember this film.
    >>
    >> http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-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?
    Anthony Polson, Dec 2, 2012
    #10
  11. Rob

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:11:22 GMT, DanP <> wrote:
    : 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/2012/03/28/4x5-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 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.

    In other words, given similar equipment, a professional will usually do a
    better job than an amateur. Are you and George advertising that as a new
    insight?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Dec 2, 2012
    #11
  12. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:11:22 GMT, DanP <> wrote:
    >: 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/2012/03/28/4x5-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 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.
    >
    >In other words, given similar equipment, a professional will usually do a
    >better job than an amateur. Are you and George advertising that as a new
    >insight?



    Dan's email address suggests at least a remote possibility that the
    Pope may be a Catholic. Whatever next?

    Perhaps bear poop might appear in proximity to some trees.
    Anthony Polson, Dec 3, 2012
    #12
  13. Rob

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, December 1, 2012 8:11:22 PM UTC, DanP wrote:
    > 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/2012/03/28/4x5-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.


    it would be an intresting thing to test, not sure how to judge it though.

    But they were all very posed for I doubt any of those posed were real workers look at their skin working on machinery and not a drop of oil or dirt insight, and and reasonabley well permed hair

    maybe working women in the US were better groomed than those in the UK I'm not sure.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > DanP
    Whisky-dave, Dec 3, 2012
    #13
  14. Rob

    DanP Guest

    On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:19:59 +0000, Anthony Polson wrote:

    >
    > Dan's email address suggests at least a remote possibility that the Pope
    > may be a Catholic. Whatever next?


    Email me in private to discuss my future plans.


    DanP
    DanP, Dec 3, 2012
    #14
  15. Rob

    DanP Guest

    On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:08:17 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:11:22 GMT, DanP <> wrote:
    > : 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/2012/03/28/4x5-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 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.
    >
    > In other words, given similar equipment, a professional will usually do
    > a better job than an amateur. Are you and George advertising that as a
    > new insight?
    >
    > Bob


    It sounds really daft what I have said. I was trying (and failed) to say
    the pictures although all taken on Kodachrome are great because of the
    photographer.

    I could have made the same point by posting my shots on Kodachrome.


    DanP
    DanP, Dec 3, 2012
    #15
  16. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 4/12/2012 5:29 AM, DanP wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:08:17 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > It sounds really daft what I have said. I was trying (and failed) to say
    > the pictures although all taken on Kodachrome are great because of the
    > photographer.
    >
    > I could have made the same point by posting my shots on Kodachrome.
    >
    >
    > DanP
    >



    So your conceited :)
    Rob, Dec 4, 2012
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stromm Sarnac
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    363
    Stromm Sarnac
    Apr 26, 2004
  2. Jess Guim

    Come One, Come All

    Jess Guim, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
    Jess Guim
    Dec 2, 2003
  3. Bedroomdj2005
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    801
  4. Beady

    Has anyone here come across this software?

    Beady, Aug 25, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,366
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Aug 27, 2009
  5. E. Scrooge
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    344
    E. Scrooge
    Sep 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page