Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) [SMTP:peterk@lucent.com] typed: >>Ektachrome that blows [Kodachrome] away....or why is it >>that so few pros use it? Most importantly, it's a pain in the ass to get processed quickly; less importantly, it lacks the garish color saturation that makes even editorial photography look like advertising (see: Velvia). BTW, if the number of pros using a product is a measure of that product's quality, you'd better dump any Leica gear that you own, Peter. >>Look through the magazines and you may be surprised to find that >>K25 and K64 have died, its just that no one told Kodak, or >>apparently some LUG members. See above. BTW, magazine photography is not the be-all OR end-all of photography. It's just a profession, where there are real hacks (lots) and real artists (many). [Ealier, Peter also typed:] >>potentially better is Archival quality [of Kodachrome] >>but the new ektachromes have improved that too! New Ektachromes are better than old Ektachromes. They still lag far behind Kodachrome for stability. >>Like I said, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I have. I think Astia is still my favorite E-6 film. It has very nice properties. That doesn't mean that it can (or should) replace Kodachrome. Different tools, different capabilities. >>Acuity?? Nonsense! [...] Finer grain...Nope, not anymore. >>New T-grain emulsions in Ektachromes blow away archane kodachrap Not nonsense, Peter. As E. Welch pointed out, E-6 films use dye couplers, K-14 films do not. K-14 is therefore an inherently higher-resolution process than E-6. This explains why fine details are resolved better in a decade-plus-old emulsion like Kodachrome than in a more recent emulsion like Astia. Don't believe Eric or me? Believe Erwin Puts, who uses Kodachrome and Tech Pan for his lens tests in preference to Velvia. Why? Superior resolution of fine detail. Don't believe Erwin? That would be foolish, but then you can still turn to: _Image Clarity : High-Resolution Photography_ by John B. Williams Hardcover - 224 pages (1990) Focal Press; ISBN: 0240800338 $59.95 @ amazon.com Williams explains in detail why (1) grain and resolution do not necessarily covary, as you seem to think they do; and (2) why dye couplers necessarily degrade E-6 image quality. By the way. I *never* said that Kodachrome has finer grain than the new films, as you imply that I do. In fact, Velvia is finer-grained than Kodachrome (by the RMS measure). I said that it has higher resolution (objectively) and *prettier* grain (the latter was my SUBJECTIVE OPINION and I said so). >>Prettier palate?? Poppycock!! Kodachrome reproduces >>purple as blue, so what palate? Are you saying that a Velvia trannie is an ACCURATE record of the light that entered the lens???? Haw, haw. That's a good un! NO film is "accurate" - for color or density. Films have different curves that render colors in ways that look SUBJECTIVELY more or less natural. I merely said that I like the way Kodachrome renders colors (and Astia, too - although in different ways). Are YOU telling ME what color balance *I* prefer??? You can argue the subjective points all you want, and your opinion will still be just an opinion. But on the objective points you're simply wrong, so far as I can tell. If you don't think that you're wrong, try educating us with a detialed explanation instead of more "namechalling". .......................................................................... Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com