Tarpon Springs 2010, last ditch Kodachrome 64 shot. It would have been sharper with a tripod. 03
NOTE: Flickr makes a .jpg of uploaded files. The Jpeg process reduces actuance. The original scan has more detail than the .jpg file and in turn the original scan has less detail than is on the film. The film probably has 4 to 9 times (2 squared to 3 squared) the detail as you can see if made with a cracker jack lens and top rated film.
Gentlepersons:
The Kodachrome Pictures:
These recently uploaded Kodachrome pictures have no artistic value. They were just uploaded to be representative of consumer Kodachrome picture recording during about 70 of the 75 years that Kodachrome was commercially available to the public. Unlike in today’s digital world it took time, money and effort to make a Kodachrome slide. We took fewer pictures, trying to stretch resources, but some are still frivolous.
I’m 97 and all tuckered out. I probably will not post much more.. The ratio of today’s digital pictures that are kept for any length of time and/or printed is much less than the film photos taken in days past. History will be lost. Meanwhile you get to be bored by some old Kodachromes, Anscochromes, a Dufaycolor and perhaps an old black&white or so.
The Camera: Kodak Retina Reflex ca. 1957?
This picture was taken with a rebuilt Kodak Retina Reflex circa 1957. It had the better six-element (3+3 elements in 4 groups) Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon C 50mm f/2 lens. This photo was taken in between 2007 and 2010. The lens could out resolve the Kodachrome used. The latest batches of Kodachrome 25 and 64 were rated by the ever truthful Kodak as being equal. Test rolls shot of the same scene in the same light minutes apart with the same clear sky and a Zeiss 50mm F:1.4 on a Contax RX did not look the same under a 60x microscope. The 25 was far superior. Perhaps Joe Isuzu is now Joe Kodak. I must be REALLY old because I can remember when the “branding” of Kodak meant quality consumer products. Today?????
The Film:
Kodachrome was my favorite film. My first roll in the late 30s was such a marvel to a young man. I had tried Dufaycolor which did pretty good, but if it had to be projected you had to ignore the lines of color which made up the image. Kodachrome was so much more colorful to boot. It was extremely sharp and almost grainless compared to other color and B&W processes.
Kodachrome was unique in American film history. Except for a licensee who used Kodachrome’s older process for a few years, nobody made anything like it. Most color films had all the color in the film. Kodachrome picked up color from the processing baths. Also unlike modern slide films which use chemical energy to reverse the negative image, Kodachrome used filtered lights to re-expose within the processing machine. Kodachrome evolved over the years, and was usually the clearest, sharpest grain free color film one could buy. That is until Kodak made a decision to reduce the budget to improve the product in favor of other products and offerings. Fuji Velvia soon eclipsed it in resolution and could be processed locally in regular E-6 mini-machines.
The Scanner, a Nikon 5000:
The Nikon 5000 was rated by the manufacture to scan at 4000 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the 5000 at or very near 4000 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100%
Tarpon Springs 2010, last ditch Kodachrome 64 shot. It would have been sharper with a tripod. 03
NOTE: Flickr makes a .jpg of uploaded files. The Jpeg process reduces actuance. The original scan has more detail than the .jpg file and in turn the original scan has less detail than is on the film. The film probably has 4 to 9 times (2 squared to 3 squared) the detail as you can see if made with a cracker jack lens and top rated film.
Gentlepersons:
The Kodachrome Pictures:
These recently uploaded Kodachrome pictures have no artistic value. They were just uploaded to be representative of consumer Kodachrome picture recording during about 70 of the 75 years that Kodachrome was commercially available to the public. Unlike in today’s digital world it took time, money and effort to make a Kodachrome slide. We took fewer pictures, trying to stretch resources, but some are still frivolous.
I’m 97 and all tuckered out. I probably will not post much more.. The ratio of today’s digital pictures that are kept for any length of time and/or printed is much less than the film photos taken in days past. History will be lost. Meanwhile you get to be bored by some old Kodachromes, Anscochromes, a Dufaycolor and perhaps an old black&white or so.
The Camera: Kodak Retina Reflex ca. 1957?
This picture was taken with a rebuilt Kodak Retina Reflex circa 1957. It had the better six-element (3+3 elements in 4 groups) Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon C 50mm f/2 lens. This photo was taken in between 2007 and 2010. The lens could out resolve the Kodachrome used. The latest batches of Kodachrome 25 and 64 were rated by the ever truthful Kodak as being equal. Test rolls shot of the same scene in the same light minutes apart with the same clear sky and a Zeiss 50mm F:1.4 on a Contax RX did not look the same under a 60x microscope. The 25 was far superior. Perhaps Joe Isuzu is now Joe Kodak. I must be REALLY old because I can remember when the “branding” of Kodak meant quality consumer products. Today?????
The Film:
Kodachrome was my favorite film. My first roll in the late 30s was such a marvel to a young man. I had tried Dufaycolor which did pretty good, but if it had to be projected you had to ignore the lines of color which made up the image. Kodachrome was so much more colorful to boot. It was extremely sharp and almost grainless compared to other color and B&W processes.
Kodachrome was unique in American film history. Except for a licensee who used Kodachrome’s older process for a few years, nobody made anything like it. Most color films had all the color in the film. Kodachrome picked up color from the processing baths. Also unlike modern slide films which use chemical energy to reverse the negative image, Kodachrome used filtered lights to re-expose within the processing machine. Kodachrome evolved over the years, and was usually the clearest, sharpest grain free color film one could buy. That is until Kodak made a decision to reduce the budget to improve the product in favor of other products and offerings. Fuji Velvia soon eclipsed it in resolution and could be processed locally in regular E-6 mini-machines.
The Scanner, a Nikon 5000:
The Nikon 5000 was rated by the manufacture to scan at 4000 PPI. Unlike most other scanners testing with a glass plate USAF 1951 with the resolution chart metal deposited on it, showed both vertical and horizontal resolution to be very close to that figure. When scanning a chart at maximum resolution one has to be concerned with registration between the lines on the chart and the pixel placement of the sensor. Exact registration is a hit and miss, re-trial exercise. With film the scanned bits of silver and dye clumps are randomly scattered without the need to have perfect alignment. I’d rate the 5000 at or very near 4000 PPI on film. Most scanners are over rated by 50-100%