I like film...(open thread)

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, Edward!

 

This is a really well composed photo with great colors, Edward. The only thing that I noticed that might be slightly off is the blue cast in the man's hair. I would bet that this is an artifact of the scanning software placing blues in shadows instead of dark tones and blacks. Just a tiny nit, easily corrected, and wonder whether you noticed...

Thank you very much for your comments Adam

 

I did indeed notice the blue cast in the hair. Scanned the shot twice, with Nikon Scan and Silverfast, and with the latter the blue is even more accentuated. I believe it must be the reflection of the blue sky since this shot is in the shadow in open air. But as Mitch mentioned about Kodachrome, this could also be caused by the film's response to certain light frequencies.

[erl]

Just a quick observation for nowhereman. I believe the colour in the ladies hair is not blue, but magenta. Add a bit of green to fix, maybe.

Rushing now but will return to have a closer look.

[harmen]

Wonderful when looked at upside down. Trees against a mountain wall with strange clouds passing by.

 

Another perspective of reflections in the Dead Sea with Velvia 50

 

Hassy 503cw, 250mm superachroomat

reflections 2.jpg

[stray cat]

I've finished scanning over 400 old slides (with the BEOON + M10 + Focotar-2), most of them Kodachrome. Looking at the results, I am struck how the rendering of slide films can be quite beautiful even when it doesn't represent some of true colors in the subject: the color of the highlights in the hair in the first picture below and the blues in the water of the Hong Kong picture. So, it is precisely some of the unrealistic color rendering of transparency film that creates a type of beauty that I would most likely attenuate when shooting with the M10 — and it is to train myself to do the opposite that I was musing that it might be useful to shoot occasionally a transparency film that one likes. Now, does that make sense to you?

 

Kodachrome looked very different depending on the exposure used: "adan," in an interesting post, said, Getting too worked up over what "looks like Kodachrome" and what doesn't is pointless. Kodachrome was always a schizophrenic film, depending on exposure. A "bright" exposure gave pastel colors, while a dark exposure gave strong saturated colors. [On this same subject, you may be interested in reading two follow-up posts by "adan" in the linked thread: posts #35 and #42].

 

These pictures were taken around 1982 or a few years later on Kodachrome 25 with an M3, the first one with a Summicron 50 and the second probably with the Tele-Elmarit 90.

 

 

Just a quick observation for nowhereman. I believe the colour in the ladies hair is not blue, but magenta. Add a bit of green to fix, maybe.

Rushing now but will return to have a closer look.

 

 

I think Erl is right here - the picture is overall too magenta.

 

I'd fix it by going into (on Photoshop) Adjustments/Selective Colour/Neutral and take out about 10 Magenta (slide the magenta slider towards the left). I think you'd find you get a much more neutrally balanced picture.

 

On the other hand, the Hong Kong picture appears to have way too much Cyan. If you were so inclined, you could try the same exercise, except slide the Cyan slider about 15 to the left and see how that grabs you.

 

Whether you are happier with the pictures so adjusted is rightfully up to you of course. They may be more "realistic" but they may not give that beauty that struck you in the first place.

Edited September 10, 2017 by stray cat

[stray cat]

Another from dawn over the Dead Sea...

 

The film:  Ektar all the way

Hassy 503cw, 80mm Planar

more dawn.jpg

 

Just... wow!

[stray cat]

This deserves being shown again, no matter what the blue-nosed naysayers have to say about quoted photographs. It's good, no, it's great! Enjoy it, revel in it! Just don't be lazy about keeping up with the forum, which seems to be what their complaints boil down to. If I see a photograph I would be proud to have taken I'll quote it.

stray cat, your photo deserves to be quoted again and again. Just ignore the silly forum politics about whether it is correct to do so or not for those who can't be bothered to keep up, and know I'd happily quote it even if there was no reason to kick back against the "Quote Police"!

 

Trouble is, Chris, I'm going to have to put my hand up and admit to having been one of those "Quote Police" myself. Mind you, in the best spirit of hypocrisy, I don't mind at all that you quoted this picture on this occasion, especially in view of the incredibly generous comments you've made! Thank you so much, sincerely.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Erl is right here - the picture is overall too magenta.

 

I'd fix it by going into (on Photoshop) Adjustments/Selective Colour/Neutral and take out about 10 Magenta (slide the magenta slider towards the left). I think you'd find you get a much more neutrally balanced picture.

 

On the other hand, the Hong Kong picture appears to have way too much Cyan. If you were so inclined, you could try the same exercise, except slide the Cyan slider about 15 to the left and see how that grabs you.

 

Whether you are happier with the pictures so adjusted is rightfully up to you of course. They may be more "realistic" but they may not give that beauty that struck you in the first place.

 

My point was that the  unrealistic colors that are in the highlights of the hair and in the sea are in the Kodachrome slides themselves; all the colors you see in these two posted images are as they are in the slide — they have not been introduced through the digitalization. Clearly, the colors you refer to can easily be neutralized.

 

The question is whether there have been color shifts in the 35-year old Kodachrome slide. That I don't know. As mentioned in another posting, I have a Kodachrome II slide from 1965 that has turned completely cyan after staying in a shipping container for six months, through the long rains, in Mombasa, Even that is fixable by making a huge movement in the LR color balance, from the 5400K from an old Imacon scan to 50,000K, as well as some HSL adjustment in the LR Color Panel.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited September 10, 2017 by Nowhereman

[stray cat]

Have there been colour shifts? Clearly - Kodachrome wouldn't have lasted long, especially with professionals, had they been all over the place colour-balance wise as these two examples are. Your experience with the cyan Kodachrome II slide attests to what havoc storage in a high humidity (am I correct in assuming Mombasa's is that) environment will wreak on - even the most stable film - Kodachrome. Were the two 1982 examples stored in anything like those conditions? I have some Kodachromes my Aunt took in the 1950s, stored in Melbourne's relatively mild environment, in which the colour balance appears totally neutral. Clearly, storage and environment are critical in the preservation of colour pictures (who'd have thunk it?).

[Guest Nowhereman]

No, the two slides above were not stored in the tropics, and should not have any color shifts because they were subject to light,having been viewed only a few times on a light table and now for the digitalization.

[A miller]

My point was that the  unrealistic colors that are in the highlights of the hair and in the sea are in the Kodachrome slides themselves;

......

No, the two slides above were not stored in the tropics, and should not have any color shifts because they were subject to light,having been viewed only a few times on a light table and now for the digitalization.

 

That's what I thought, as well.  But now I am asking myself what exactly you are asking us to assess if the baseline for comparison is a aged color-imbalanced chrome??  That you've managed to match the color imbalance very well?  That the overall tonal range that we al love in film is well reproduced - even though your second photo has very well blown highlights? Hmm....

Edited September 10, 2017 by A miller

[A miller]

Just... wow!

Thanks, Phil.

[A miller]

Wonderful when looked at upside down. Trees against a mountain wall with strange clouds passing by.

 

Thanks for the close look and outside-the-box thought.  I think I like it!!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Wayne]

img807 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Zenit ET, Mamiya-Sekor 55mm 1.4, Fuji Superia 200

[A miller]

img807 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Zenit ET, Mamiya-Sekor 55mm 1.4, Fuji Superia 200

 

really good one, Wayne.  The three geometric subjects presented in succession work really well.  And I haven't seen an old Mustang like that in a driveway since my days in Texas...

Edited September 10, 2017 by A miller

[Wayne]

really good one, Wayne.  The three geometric subjects presented in succession work really well.  And I haven't seen an old Mustang like that in a driveway since my days in Texas...

Thanks. I have been recording this neighborhood for about a year. The black mold seen on everything is from emissions of a down-wind distillery. Slowly, the distillery is buying up the homes and destroying them. It is kind of funny: it appears the distillery's intent is to do this project on a budget and buy only those homes they can purchase on the cheap; but,.......as they buy and remove the more damaged homes, they are in fact improving the neighborhood, and values, for remaining homes. It makes me smile: Markets/capitalism working both ways. 

 

And here is another thing that makes me smile:

 

I bought this old Soviet SLR, new/old stock, for the price of a couple of beers. It is M42 mount, so I can use all of my old Takumar and other M42 glass. The focusing screen is just about the best- almost by an order of magnitude- I have ever experienced in an SLR......film or digital. I would recommend one to anyone with a collection of M42 glass. It is a fantastic camera. I mean, if a person is aging, and worried about accuracy of eyesight, it is worth a try.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Wayne

[stray cat]

No, the two slides above were not stored in the tropics, and should not have any color shifts because they were subject to light,having been viewed only a few times on a light table and now for the digitalization.

 

Well then it appears we are in the realm of the unknowable, because we don't have enough evidence to deduce what may have happened to the slides over the past 35 years. Perhaps the colour shift was always there? But there certainly appears to be an inconsistent colour shift. Why - who knows?

[chrism]

Trouble is, Chris, I'm going to have to put my hand up and admit to having been one of those "Quote Police" myself. Mind you, in the best spirit of hypocrisy, I don't mind at all that you quoted this picture on this occasion, especially in view of the incredibly generous comments you've made! Thank you so much, sincerely.

 

 

I know, so I thought I'd gently pull your leg. Mind you, I meant all the things I said about the photo!

[Wayne]

For some reason, at the time, it seemed important to get the hockey guys into the action......Call it allegiance to the game. Now, I see that it might have been better to concentrate of the gas station.

 

img820 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Zenit ET, Mamiya Sekor 55mm 1.4, Fuji Superia 200

Edited September 10, 2017 by Wayne

[Wayne]

The end of the road. You all know about my infatuation with this once highly prized mount. It now appears it is starring down its likely fate.

 

img824 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Zenit ET, Mamiya-Sekor 55mm 1.4, Fuji Superia 200

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Nowhereman]

That's what I thought, as well.  But now I am asking myself what exactly you are asking us to assess if the baseline for comparison is a aged color-imbalanced chrome??  That you've managed to match the color imbalance very well?  That the overall tonal range that we al love in film is well reproduced - even though your second photo has very well blown highlights? Hmm....

Well then it appears we are in the realm of the unknowable, because we don't have enough evidence to deduce what may have happened to the slides over the past 35 years. Perhaps the colour shift was always there? But there certainly appears to be an inconsistent colour shift. Why - who knows?

 

I think it's highly unlikely that the slides have shifted in color given how and where they were stored and that they were viewed on a light table only a few times: And, Adam, there are no blown highlights in the Honk Kong image: far from it, the brightest part of the sky has RBG blues of 94, 97, 91 respectively. It's only some brighter light coming through a fog.

 

My point was that transparency film (Kodachrome in this case) often has some "unreal" colors, whose incidence and intensity depends on the extent of under or overexposure, as suggested in the linked posting by "adan". And I was then musing further that some of the beauty of transparency film lies in these anomalies — and that this effect, for the foregoing reasons, was difficult to emulate in post-processing digital files from, say the M10. And that it was useful, occasionally to shoot slide film to keep oneself from attenuating or neutralizing unusual color effects — ones that can add to the beauty of an image; but, ironically — but perhaps typically and in line with my hypothesis — people started posting how to neutralize the "anomalous" colors that were present in the two slides.

 

So, in one way or the other, I got the answer: Yes, Virginia, there can be value for one's digital photography to shoot color slides occasionally.

_______________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine