On 12/26/2010 9:48 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> People are waxing lyrical about the demise of Kodachrome, but the fact is
> that not enough of them were buying it when it was available to make it
> worthwhile for Kodak to continue it.
I never understood the mystique, but clearly, things about its color rendering
were important to the artistic vision of
many photographers.
Fairly early on, I mixed Kodachrome and Ektachrome on the same trip, to get
more speed for some shots. It drove me a
little wild that the two films rendered the same subjects with such different
colors. It didn't seem to me that either
was particularly accurate. I had this foolish ;-) idea that all films should
render relatively similar and more or
less accurate colors.
So as soon as I could get my film scanned, I dropped slides completely - and
very soon got my first scanner. I loved the
extended range of CNeg film and soon, the ability to profile films so they all
came out with the same, rather accurate,
colors.
I feel for those who are strongly affected by the demise of Kodachrome. But I
have to think the handwriting was on the
wall for a very long time. Shouldn't they have been exploring alternative ways
to express their vision? I can't imagine
it isn't possible to make very good Kodachrome looking color prints from
digital image files.
After all, it's just a version of ICC color profiling, adjusting a file to
match the Kodachrome profile, rather than an
ideal file. Of course anyone who wanted to do so should be done by now, as it's
too late to shoot the targets. It would
never be quite the same, but I'll bet it could be very, very close. No
replacement for viewing the transparency, except
perhaps with a film 'printer' and a lot of work, but very Kodachromey prints
should be possible.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|