NB23 Posted June 24, 2010 Share #41 Posted June 24, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Main Entry: fin·icky Pronunciation: \ˈfi-ni-kē\ Function: adjective Etymology: alteration of finicking Date: circa 1825 1 : extremely or excessively particular, exacting, or meticulous in taste or standards <a finicky eater> 2 : requiring much care, precision, or attentive effort <a finicky recipe> You can't really redifine words to mean their opposite. Kodachrome is one of the least finicky films I've ever used, aside from Tri-X. Also, saying "compared to other E-6 films" is to suggest that Kodachrome is also an E-6 film. It is not. It's K-14, which is an entirely different process. Anyhow, not going to go round and round with you on this. No, please don't go round and round with me on this. Your simple argument to which a K-14 film shouldn't be compared to a E-6 film but yet you compared it to Velvia is already plenty enough not to take your opinion very seriously. Among the most important reasons why Kodachrome has seen its sales dropping and ultimately stopped is because of the E-6 competition. What the E-6 films offered Versus Kodachrome was: -More flexibility -Better tolerance to to mixed light -Better tolerance to over-underexposure. - Faster processing. Please note that back then, the processing took 2 days, hardly a major turnoff, and it was widely available across the Nation. And regarding the definition you copy-pasted, it accurately describes what Kodachrome is. So much that it lost the battle against more flexible slide films. Kodachrome has been let down massively by the users. Massively. All in favor of E-6, first, and then digital. Even the Studio photographers favored other films because of Kodachrome's funky response to artificial light: in other words, they couldn't match the exact light temperature output of their strobes to Kodachrome's response to a very specific temperature. Anything slightly off and there you had pink skin, red skin and blue skin while none of this was problematic with other films. Still, what makes Kodachrome magical is the sum of all this. Let's not forget that Kodachrome wasn't very magical at all in the last years. There was a clear correlation between Kodachrome's fall and Velvia's soar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 Hi NB23, Take a look here my last roll of Kodachrome in my M6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JJKapsberger Posted June 24, 2010 Share #42 Posted June 24, 2010 ...once you nail your subject it glows, and everything else falls in place... Yes, but perception of that glow is purely subjective. You might look at a K64 slide and see that glow; I might look at the same slide and honestly prefer another one of the same scene exposed slightly differently. ...you can't nail it otherwise than by sheer luck, unless...you get the one and only right exposure according to your incident meter. As AlanG rightly pointed out (see the quote below), the incident reading is a reference not a requirement. Admittedly, your words do not preclude that, but neither do they acknowledge that. If one uses the incident reading as a reference, one still might adjust exposure away from that reading. How far would one adjust that reading? It's purely a matter of taste, of pleasing the viewer's eye or realizing the shooter's creative intention. Also, two incident meters might give differing readings, so exposure "according to your incident meter" might not even be reliable even in a purely technical sense. The use of the incident meter - or proper compensation with a reflective one - is crucial to the discussion. Yes, it is. However, also crucial to the discussion is whether correct exposure is a technical matter or one of taste. I'm more convinced by AlanG's argument: What is perfect exposure to one person may be too light or too dark for another. There is no such thing as an "accurate" exposure. Exposure is simply the total amount of light that falls on the film...The goal in general photography usually is to achieve "pleasing" tonal reproduction. What is pleasing is subjective and we vary the look as part of the creative process. What is the right exposure for a night shot? One that makes everything look like it is daytime? An incident reading indicates normal exposure under relatively bright lighting, so in a night scene an incident reading would have to be adjusted in order to give sufficient underexposure that realizes the feeling of darkness. How much adjustment is necessary? It's purely a subjective call, not an objective or technical one. You are confusing a reference point with a requirement. Metering for 18% gray is a reference that the photographer then has to interpret in order to depict the subject in the way he/she envisions. This may be somewhat lighter or darker. The view you express of "proper" exposure is very simplistic and would imply that there is only one "correct" way to expose a given subject in a given situation. Correct exposure, even of K64, is not a matter of obeying correctly placed incident meters or 'given speeds' determined by scientists and engineers. Ultimately it's purely a matter of taste. If we saw slides only as NB23 does, then, yes, we could say that these K64 slides are correctly exposed because they jump off the light table, whereas those are incorrectly exposed because they do not. However, because we each have our own way of seeing things, we might prefer different exposures of a given scene (all other things being equal). One shooter's correct exposure might be another shooter's over- or underexposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted June 24, 2010 Share #43 Posted June 24, 2010 Nenad Bojic (NB23) has some nice KC64 images in the latest LFI. Wouldn't it be nice of nb23 if he were to upload these images for us on LUF to enjoy. .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 24, 2010 Share #44 Posted June 24, 2010 Where do you know them from? State your case openly, if you have one. At this point in time you've made three posts and attacked someone in every one. Please stop trolling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted June 24, 2010 Share #45 Posted June 24, 2010 Wouldn't it be nice of nb23 if he were to upload these images for us on LUF to enjoy. .. No it wouldn't be nice of NB23 to do so. LFI is a serious business and it is not a prohibitively expensive magazine. Well worth the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 24, 2010 Share #46 Posted June 24, 2010 Regards my ass. Yup. Proven. Thought so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted June 24, 2010 Share #47 Posted June 24, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) What is going on with the forum these days? It used to be a pleasure to come to this site and learn from some extremely knowledgable photographers, and to engage in some wonderful discussions about a medium we all enjoy. But it seems that every other thread I'm reading these days ends in bickering and personal attacks. This is not the way to encourage new visitors, and reflects poorly on all of us as a collective site supporting Leica photography. Perhaps the mods need to tighten the reins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted June 24, 2010 Share #48 Posted June 24, 2010 It is all the same old childish play. I found the discussion controversial but interesting until Azzo stepped in and stirred the wheel again. Can't you both please not simply put each other on ignore? Regards Steve Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 24, 2010 Share #49 Posted June 24, 2010 I'm going to lay out some basic "facts." Real life scenes such as a snow covered mountain in full sun that also has dark trees in deep shadow can represent a brightness range up to 1,000,000 to 1. Kodachrome has a usable Dmax over fog of around 3-3.7 (This is expressed as density which is a logarithmic number.) This works out to a typical brightness range for a projected Kodachrome slide of about 1,000 to 1. Even if the Dmax went to 4 this would only be 10,000 to 1. A nice glossy print viewed under pretty bright light has a brightness range of around 120 to 1. So a lot of interpretation has to go into making a good exposure of an extreme brightness range fit into a smaller one. And if the original scene is flat, there is no easy way to expand it with Kodachrome. 1 stop equals .30 density. 1/32nd of a stop equals about .01 density. The human visual system is not a good measuring tool. It uses a process called "brightness and color constancy" which interprets a subject to how we expect to see it. This is why we see a piece of white as white whether it is in full sunlight on the beach or in a darkish fluorescent lit room under a table. With that in mind, do you think that when a slide is displayed on a lightbox or is projected, one can detect a difference of .01 density? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 25, 2010 Share #50 Posted June 25, 2010 I'd also like to point out that an incident reading of light on a very high contrast scene will result in a Kodachrome slide that has blown out highlights and blocked up shadows. Sometimes one has to meter the scene and/or make adjustments with the shadows or highlights in mind. This is where experience and creativity come into play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted June 25, 2010 Share #51 Posted June 25, 2010 Wow, I thought I was going to see Kodachrome images posted or something, what a drag. I have seen some of Ned's Kodachrome work, it is nice, good play of light and color. Now, I just sent off another 80 rolls of Kodachrome to the lab, I am now up to shooting well over 100 rolls per month which is good because I still have 827 rolls left of 25 and 64. My hit ratio in terms of exposure reaching what I refer to as the film's Maximum Saturation Threshold is at around 90%. In other words, very few if any images are off in exposure. I typically dial in adjustments of around 1/3rd to mayyyybe 1/5th of a stop as I sense the light has changed. A lot of times this is done by feel or instinct rather than incessant metering. But 1/32nd of a stop, I simply do not agree with. Kodachrome seems to have a window of about 1/4 stop to really nail the luminance in a scene, not much tighter in tolerance than that really. When you do pair this luminance with a masterful approach to recognizing this convergence, you nail what I call the Flash Point of Color. It's like the film paired with the light hits a crescendo that is so short in duration, it is like a flash of color. I have been shooting this film full time, everyday without interruption since late April and will not stop until the lab shuts down. So this is what I see personally and I could easily get some outright famous expert opinion that would back this up. Love your passion Ned, but while Kodachrome does have narrow latitude in terms of a brilliant exposure, it is not 1/32nd of a stop and it has everything to do with a deep understanding of the film paired with relentless talent rather than what is most likely an imperceptible variation in exposure value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted June 25, 2010 Share #52 Posted June 25, 2010 May I ask a stupid question? How do you adjust for 1/5th? My understanding is that I can adjust with a precision of 1/2 of a stop only b y turing the aperture wheel. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Dog Posted June 25, 2010 Share #53 Posted June 25, 2010 Yes, but perception of that glow is purely subjective. You might look at a K64 slide and see that glow; I might look at the same slide and honestly prefer another one of the same scene exposed slightly differently. No. Perfect exposure for the subject is perfect exposure for the subject. Preference has nothing to do with it. As AlanG rightly pointed out (see the quote below), the incident reading is a reference not a requirement. Admittedly, your words do not preclude that, but neither do they acknowledge that. If one uses the incident reading as a reference, one still might adjust exposure away from that reading. Yes, especially in a high-contrast situation, as recently pointed out. How far would one adjust that reading? It's purely a matter of taste, of pleasing the viewer's eye or realizing the shooter's creative intention. No, it's a matter of experience so that you can nail the exposure. Also, two incident meters might give differing readings, so exposure "according to your incident meter" might not even be reliable even in a purely technical sense. You get the best meter you can. An incident reading indicates normal exposure under relatively bright lighting, so in a night scene an incident reading would have to be adjusted in order to give sufficient underexposure that realizes the feeling of darkness. How much adjustment is necessary? It's purely a subjective call, not an objective or technical one. Answered above. It is technical, and a question of experience. Correct exposure, even of K64, is not a matter of obeying correctly placed incident meters or 'given speeds' determined by scientists and engineers. Ultimately it's purely a matter of taste. I don't understand this obsession with taste. If we saw slides only as NB23 does, then, yes, we could say that these K64 slides are correctly exposed because they jump off the light table, whereas those are incorrectly exposed because they do not. However, because we each have our own way of seeing things, we might prefer different exposures of a given scene (all other things being equal). But we must see slides as NB23 sees them. We must train ourselves to see like masters. One shooter's correct exposure might be another shooter's over- or underexposure. One of the two is wrong, with even the possibility of both of them being wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 25, 2010 Share #54 Posted June 25, 2010 But we must see slides as NB23 sees them. We must train ourselves to see like masters No chance of that unless we subscribe to LFI it appears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted June 25, 2010 Share #55 Posted June 25, 2010 [quote=The Dog; ..............We must train ourselves to see like masters........... . Could you explain how one goes about this training? Do all masters (sic) see the same? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 25, 2010 Share #56 Posted June 25, 2010 I don't understand this obsession with taste. Spoken like a man with none. Originally, it evolved as a mechanism to protect us from being poisoned. Today it protects us from sterility, pedantry and time-wasters. But we must see slides as NB23 sees them. We must train ourselves to see like masters. I sense a disturbance in the Farce... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted June 25, 2010 Share #57 Posted June 25, 2010 Pardon my ignorance but is "Gesperrt" German for pretentious prat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicko101 Posted June 25, 2010 Share #58 Posted June 25, 2010 I don't understand this obsession with taste. And I sure don't understand absolutist black and white viewpoints in a world of millions of shades of grey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted June 25, 2010 Share #59 Posted June 25, 2010 Woof, woof...... Lost Dogs - Lost-Doggies UK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJKapsberger Posted June 25, 2010 Share #60 Posted June 25, 2010 But we must see slides as NB23 sees them. We must train ourselves to see like masters. One of the two is wrong, with even the possibility of both of them being wrong. Yes, Ned consistently shows a masterly eye. Great photographer and critic and I congratulate him on being featured in LFI. Although I disagree with his (and your) view on exposure, I don't deny the essence of what Ned says, that the key to a well exposed K64 slide is to nail exposure within a very fine degree and that nailing it isn't a matter of control, as no camera, especially a Leica, can be set so precisley, but rather a matter of luck. And when the shooter is lucky and nails the K64's exposure, the K64 slide sings like no other. (You'll get no argument out of me over that.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.