kodachromeproject.com Forums  

Go Back   kodachromeproject.com Forums > Kodachrome, Scanning and Output

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-27-2010, 10:19 PM
matt8314 matt8314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 249
matt8314 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
In comparing the two films, however, they are totally different animals! Velvia can easily sucker-punch you with hues reminiscent of an explosion in a paint factory. Kodachrome shows you the colors more like they are in real life.
Good point. There are a couple of other problems that I have had with Velvia with regards to color. One is that, with Velvia, color sometimes ends up being an all-or-nothing affair. Specifically, Velvia doesn't seem to be very good at showing various shades of a color. If there is a red area, for instance, it all looks about the same. Another problem I have is that Velvia seems to bring out color where I just don't want it. A good example of this is the blueness of faraway subjects in a landscape. With Kodachrome, it is well under control. But with Velvia, it just sticks out like a sore thumb. And finally, there is Velvia's tendency to go REALLY red on alot of 'warmer' colors. This is perhaps best known to be a problem with skin tones, but is not limited to that. Browns and yellows can also go red at times. For instance, the straw-colored dry grass which is SO common here in California in summer can look quite orange at times when shot with Velvia. Especially when the sun is somewhat low.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2010, 03:41 AM
lxdude's Avatar
lxdude lxdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Currently, Redlands, in Southern California.
Posts: 204
lxdude is on a distinguished road
Default

I have found Velvia to be useful in heavy overcast. The colors are muted down some and actually look real. A little extra exposure seems to help, too. Under regular lighting, I think it just looks phony.
When I looked at the Rowell retrospective book I could easily tell which were shot on Kodachrome and which were on Velvia. I know which I prefer.
To my eye Velvia's extreme saturation tends to eliminate color nuance. Just what you were saying, Matt. A pink cloud on Velvia in the Rowell book just looks uniformly pink when it clearly would not be like that in reality.

Ektachrome VS is too much for most of what I like too, but compared to Velvia at least the colors have more than a casual relationship with reality.

Last edited by lxdude; 07-28-2010 at 03:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2010, 07:15 AM
dmr's Avatar
dmr dmr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 117
dmr is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
I have found Velvia to be useful in heavy overcast. The colors are muted down some and actually look real.
One of the more unusual Velvia exposures I've ever made came about when a friend dragged me out into the green space behind the office building to see the hoarfrost that had accumulated on the trees.

This was one of the "get your camera, quick" moments.

Here's one of the frames from that shoot ...



Well, for some reason I didn't have my carry-everywhere camera with me that day, but in my car I did have the GIII loaded with Velvia.

As everyone knows, the best camera for a shoot is the one you have there and now. Likewise, the best film for a shoot is what you have.

It almost looks to be B&W as you can see. No, I did no de-saturation or anything in Photoshop. Yes, this is really-truly Velvia 50.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2010, 09:12 AM
kevinkar kevinkar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 75
kevinkar is on a distinguished road
Default

That little hint of color on the branch in the center is very nice.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-28-2010, 10:34 AM
dmr's Avatar
dmr dmr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 117
dmr is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinkar View Post
That little hint of color on the branch in the center is very nice.
Thanks.

That's really the only way you can tell it is color.

And, OBTW, that's not lens vignetting. This was shot into an overcast sky and more or less centered on where the sun would be.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-30-2010, 07:13 AM
AndrewKirkby's Avatar
AndrewKirkby AndrewKirkby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 109
AndrewKirkby is on a distinguished road
Default

Velvia and Kodachrome are vastly different films in terms of colour and scanning ability.

I find Velvia scans easily even in an average scanner. Kodachrome i have trouble scanning with i think due to the nature of the dyes and thickness of the film.
That said, it scans very well on a Imacon 848 scanner and newer Hasselblad versions which are essentially the same. Expensive option. Also, Nikon 8000/9000ED scanners work great too.

As for dust, i think the cardboard dust in the mounts can cause problems. I get my film uncut and this makes it a lot easier to handle. If i want to mount it, i use Gepe plastic/glass mounts.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-05-2010, 08:37 PM
Hellashot Hellashot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 168
Hellashot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
Question: Did you use ICE or equivalent when scanning?


I really believe that it depends far more on the care in processing, packaging, storage, etc., than the film itself, in regards to the amount of dust.
My scanner does not have digital ICE, and I store all my mounted slides in the same manner. Someone else mentioned that dust from the cardboard might contribute to how dusty kodachrome slides are to scan.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-06-2010, 03:51 AM
matt8314 matt8314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 249
matt8314 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewKirkby View Post
I find Velvia scans easily even in an average scanner. Kodachrome i have trouble scanning with i think due to the nature of the dyes and thickness of the film.
The problem is not the film or the scanner, but the calibration. Simply put, by the time scanners came into vogue, very little Kodachrome was being shot. So scanner manufacturers calibrated their scanner software for E6 films. And, for whatever reason (possibly because they figure few people would scan Kodachrome), even if the software DOES have a Kodachrome setting, it just doesn't seem to work all that well. More expensive versions of Silverfast seem to have better color correction. But this is certainly not a cheap option.

With all this said, it might seem like Kodachrome is a poor way to go. But I say that, if you want high-quality digital files, DIGITAL is a better way to go than ANY kind of film. Unless we are talking about at least medium format, scanned film just can't hold a candle to a file produced by a good DSLR. ESPECIALLY in the area of sharpness and grain.

The way I see it, film is something to shoot for the analog experience. And this includes viewing by analog means, such as a projector and/or light table. Viewed in this way, slides are simply unsurpassed by ANYTHING out there. But if you are looking for digital output, a DSLR will ALWAYS be a better way to go than scanning - at least if we are talking about 35mm.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:05 AM
Sujoy Sujoy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3
Sujoy is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with Matt. A good 12 mp raw digital file properly processed with beat a film scan hands down esp for sharpness and grain as he correctly points out.
__________________
http://www.sujoydas.com
Photographs from the Himalaya
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-09-2010, 11:28 PM
marcus marcus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 61
marcus is on a distinguished road
Default

hmmm.... Are we including drum scans in ALWAYS? I've seen 40x60's from 35mm that I just couldn't believe, from drum scanned 35mm. I saw a 40" Kodachrome 200... must have been interpolated, that completely broke me of my pining for R prints.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.