Chodachrome processing on life support

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Savageduck, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. That's a more thorough picture than I had but it makes sense.

    I've spent so much time in software development and dicking around with
    broken software I object to being someone else's unpaid guinea pig. I just
    want stuff that works but others (especially gamers) get a buzz out of
    because of the novelty or shared experience.

    I missed out almost entirely on the film experience but I like the way
    the brains were baked into film. Digital has its advantages but I don't like
    all the dicking around it encourages. Maybe that's a creativity gap on my
    part but there's limits to how much time I want to spend farting around with
    Lightroom and/or Photoshop.
    Charles E Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    Charles E Hardwidge wrote,on my timestamp of 12/01/2011 2:23 AM:

    I guess part of the thing you mention is the mindset that film can't be
    post-processed while digital can.
    Of course, nothing further from reality: film once scanned, can be as software
    manipulated as digital is, provided due care is taken if that is the intention.

    Thing I find with film is that apart from cleaning out the "grain" and a bit of
    extra sharpening, I can usually get results I like straight out of the scan

    I won't go into b&w film, this is just for colour and slide. I find that folks
    usually have strong subjective opinions on b&w. All good.

    With digital I can spend a lot of time faffing around with Capture NX2 or
    Capture One trying to get just the look and balance I conceived of or thought of
    when I took the shot. And if anything is over-exposed, it's usually a major
    hassle to get some semblance of pleasing effect back.

    And as much as I find some of the modern editing software amazing, I've really
    got no interest in slapping half a dozen layers on an image just to get
    something I can get with one layer in film. Same goes for pp effects such as
    panoramics and so-called infinite DOF shots:nice to have, but not my purpose in
    life and nothing to stop me from using film for the initial capture.

    Having said that, macro is an instance I find very convenient to use a digital
    camera. And without a doubt on high ISOs digital cameras have a major
    advantage. I don't use high ISO much but some folks are sold on it. I suspect
    there is a lot of "wow"-factor in that: "Wow, look what I can do at 3200ISO!"
    and so on.

    Yeah, so what? I prefer to open up the lens and drop the shutter while using
    400ISO - nothing wrong with that in my book. In fact, quite a lot of right
    about it: a dragging shutter can create a mood in a photo better than anything
    else. Same goes for what is usually called bokeh. Almost impossible to do
    either when you're zapping digital at 3200ISO unless you shoot through a glass
    bottle used to put out a candle...

    But of course: each to their own. And long live the choice.
    Noons, Jan 11, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. I too have old film.

    Indeed, the Kodachrome has help up perfectly.

    But ... so has all the other Kodak color film except Ektachrome E4 process, which
    has seriously turned red and is near-unusable as color material (though fine as B&W).

    This include 1972 vintage Kodak color negative film both Kodacolor (no suffix)
    and Ektacolor.

    However, note that all the film since 1969 has been stored under controlled
    conditions. It is the 1955-1968 Ektachrome and Kodachrome that was stored under
    seriously hot humid conditions. Process E-6 Ektachrome has kept as well as

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Jan 11, 2011
  4. Savageduck

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:23:48 -0000, "Charles E Hardwidge"

    --- snip ---
    My first reaction was that you didn't know what you were talking about
    but then I realised you were talking about Kodachrome. I've spent many
    happy hours messing around in dark rooms using different developers at
    different temperatures in an attempt to get the results I wanted with
    a particular film. Then there were the fixers. All this was only for
    the film.

    The print was the same again, with different papers and different
    developers etc. Then there was dodging and masking and burning and all
    the other tricks you could get up to in the dark room.

    Kodachrome put an end to all that. You exposed the film and the lab
    produced the results. If it hadn't been necessary to set exposures,
    you could have used a Box Brownie.

    "The dicking around" you complain about with digital photography has,
    in one form or another, been inherent in photography from the very
    beginning. Kodachrome did not eliminate it but merely took it out of
    your hands. Now you have got it back again, unless of course you want
    to set your camera to JPG and let it do all the thinking for you.

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jan 11, 2011
  5. I'm talking about "bog standard" processing of all film not all that jacking
    off shit people might get into. As Pete said film was created with a certain
    look to operate under a range of conditions. The brains was baked in. By
    comparison digital is open season. The barrier to fiddling and farting is
    very low even if you have no talent or sense of taste. Think of it like an
    edited book from a major publishing house versus, say, a blog.

    Similar film versus digital issues exist with cinematography. You can just
    run with the standard processing which gets the job done as per the film and
    conditions you shot under. Or you can **** and fart with the film if you're
    certain you're not going to plough some moral hazard. Digital? It's got the
    same fannying around issues as stills. Just because you can doesn't mean you
    should. Crap is crap whatever buttons the colouriser punches.

    So you might want to watch that "don't know what you're talking about"
    stuff. That presumes you're looking at the issues from the same direction,
    or your hours of fannying around in the darkroom are worth a wet fart. Maybe
    you're correct for the POV you took and all your stuff is great. Dunno, and
    don't care. Just like I don't care if someone's SLR dick is bigger than my
    G9 and they know all the Photoshop shortcuts by rote.
    Charles E Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2011
  6. Savageduck

    Frank ess Guest

    Appropriately colorful language.
    Frank ess, Jan 12, 2011
  7. Savageduck

    Eric Stevens Guest

    The quality of the results are not the point at issue. It's "dicking
    around" that you complain digital encourages. I was pointing out that
    the "dicking around" has been present in photography from the outset
    and all digital photography has done is take it out of the darkroom
    and put it into a computer.

    If you want to continue using something with the 'brains baked in' you
    can always buy a simple point and shoot. Or maybe you want to restrict
    the actions of other people?

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jan 12, 2011
  8. The quality of the results is *exactly* the issue and I don't take too
    kindly to you putting words in my mouth.

    My killfile has a hair-trigger for dick waving wingnut's so you can
    contemplate Ayan Rand and market forces in there.

    Heh. That was a short conversation.
    Charles E Hardwidge, Jan 12, 2011
  9. Savageduck

    dickr2 Guest

    Aargh! I resemble that statement, but I like it not.
    dickr2, Jan 12, 2011
  10. Savageduck

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I quuoted you exactly and discussed what it was you appeared to mean.
    People used to "dick around" in dark rooms and produce horrible
    results when they did. Brains were never "baked in" to film except in
    a very few limited number of cases. People could, and did, "dick
    around" with monochrome and virtually all color films other than
    Kodachrome. From your writings, I suspect that if you had been around
    you would have disapproved of them doing so.
    In the real world I suppose you would turn off your hearing aid.
    Why? Have you decided to confine yourself to

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
  11. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 13/01/2011 2:30 PM:
    That hasn't gone away with the darkroom being replaced by a digital one: the
    problem was not the darkroom...
    I suspect only if it was referred to as that expression...
    Noons, Jan 13, 2011
  12. Savageduck

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Agreed. I suspect that this was Charles E Hardwidge's point. All I was
    doing was pointing out that this did not start with digital
    Maybe, but Charles never referred to the quality of the results but
    only to the process - "dick around" - itself.

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
  13. Hi,

    Some years ago, having run out of Kodachrome on a trip, I had to use
    Agfachrome slide film for one day. With it, I took pix of a renaissance
    costume movie being filmed in Carcassone, France. The subjects were in
    mostly brown and green/brown costumes: farmer types, men fighting with
    swords, men climbing up ropes, breads, cheeses, ducks and geese, etc..
    The slides have long since faded to muted browns for the most part, but
    strangely enough, the muted autumnal colors add to the charm of the

    As an aside, having 2 cameras draped around my neck, I was allowed
    entrance to the castle where the movie was being filmed. My wife was
    refused entrance, as no tourists were allowed.

    Morton Linder
    Morton Linder, Jan 18, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.