File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i'm happy /p/.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeMotorolaCamera ModelMegapixelCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:30 14:37:26Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramBrightness0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
too bad you only own a camera phone. good try though
>> Anonymous
i was on the way back from class and stopped in the campus bookstore to try and find some flip flops.

mean tripfag is mean ;_;
>> Anonymous
flip flops are for faggots.
>> Anonymous
bitches don't know bout my Kodachrome
http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/1a34896u_1.jpg

This website fucking rules, This shot is from 1942
4x5 kodachrome
>> Anonymous
what's the difference between Kodachrome and elite chrome?
>> Anonymous
>>266345
one is k-14 process, one is e-6 process.

Yes, they both produce slides, but that's where the comparison ends.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266345
Completely different development process.

I've been scanning some old slides from the 50s. The Kodachrome looks as vibrant as the day it was developed.

The non-Kodachrome slides in the bunch, on the other hand, look like they were shot on monochromatic red film at this point because they've faded so much. Dunno how much Kodak's other chromes have improved over the years, but I still doubt it'll hold its colors as well as Kodachrome has.
>> Anonymous
It is such a shame that kodachrome is drawing its last breath.
>> Anonymous
>>266349
>>I've been scanning some old slides from the 50s. The Kodachrome looks as vibrant as the day it was developed.

So, you're saying your at least 60 years old? If you not, you don't have any idea "how vibrant" the Kodachrome slide you have scanned were "the day they were developed."
Secondly - you are comparing apples to oranges. Kodachrome starts off with WAY less color saturation than E6 slides. I also starts off with a slight greenish cast. The fact that side by side E6 blow Kodachrome away combined with Kodachromes ridiculous price for stock and development led to demise.
BTW - I am NOT saying that I don't prefer the look of Kodachrome. It's much more natural. People like E6 because their friends will say "look at the pretty colors..."
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266411
>So, you're saying your at least 60 years old? If you not, you don't have any idea "how vibrant" the Kodachrome slide you have scanned were "the day they were developed."
Logic train! *DING* DING DINg ding ding din...

Whoops, looks like you missed it.

Presumably the world is roughly the same vibrancy today as it was in the 50s. This is unverifiable, but making an argument against it is solipsistically silly, so let's just assume. So we can compare the vibrancy of Kodachrome shot in the 50s against the real world and it comes out favorably.

If that weren't enough, Kodachrome *is* still around, if in limited quantities, and we can compare the Kodachrome slides from the 50s with Kodachrome slides from today and get the same results.
>> Anonymous
>>266411

I know someone who is over 60 and they shot Kodachrome for years and the slides still look great.
>> Anonymous
>>266424
Not saying they don't. I was just pointing out the kind of fuckin' bullshit people here spout as if it's some kind of fact.
That fag has a lot of time on his hands and always has an answer for anything, but in reality, he's regurgitating someone some else said.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266428
>but in reality, he's regurgitating someone some else said.
Am I going to need to post a self-portrait with me holding up a ca. 1956 Kodachrome and a ca. 1956 Ektachrome from the batch I've been going through? This is my personal experience with dealing with slides from the 50s, not just something I read on a message board somewhere.
>> Anonymous
>>266423
didn't miss a thing mister know-it-all and you're not going to win any arguments with straw dogs like "Presumably the world is roughly the same vibrancy today as it was in the 50s"

Because Kodachrome, as good as it might be, doesn't look like real life. If you think it does, I recommend a trip to am opthamologist

You have no credibility whatsoever.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266435
>win any arguments
Actually, I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here.

You seem to have conceded the point that Kodachrome holds up extremely well against fading (or at least aren't arguing it). So what exactly is the point you're trying to make? That I have not personally seen Kodachrome slides from the 50s? Or are you just trolling me because you're aware of my penchant for joining in stupid arguments on the Internet?
>> Anonymous
>>266438
it's time for you to see how little you know
1) Kodachrome has always been developed (more or less) by specialty houses. (and Kodak itself)
E6 was done as some pro places and a whole bunch of places that essentially used mini labs. Wannabee, who shot E6 because pros did, don't understand that the major steps in keeping film of any sort for a long time, is 1) clean developement and proper rinse and 2) proper storage. Mini lab style E6 - which MOST non-professional users had FADES. If you compare 30 year old, properly stored E6, you will see that it doesn't fade much. Same is true for negs - I have negs that are 40-50 years old shot with Kodacolor and developed by Kodak. They were stored in my moterh closet in a shoe box.. I printed some of them. The color is excellent.
I never said Kodachrome was good or that it didn't last.
I criticized you because you're phony and I've read just about enough of your bullshit. You post was very carefully crafted. If you really thought that the slides were beautiful (do you even have any) you would have simply said so rather than resorting to hyperbole.

Sometimes STFO. Maybe you'll see that there are people who actually could teach you something
>> Anonymous
ITT: quality posts in no way deserving of mod attention
>> Anonymous
>>266447
You are too old to be on 4chan
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266447
>I criticized you because you're phony and I've read just about enough of your bullshit
Is there a set of conditions I could satisfy that would prove to you that I wasn't just bullshitting when I said that I've been scanning old Kodachrome and non-Kodachrome slides from the 50s? I'd like to know before I invest any more time and effort into this if I'm gonna be rewarded with something like "Ha ha! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL! PWNT" at the end. I've got available to me the big box of slides I've been scanning (mixed Kodachrome, Ektachrome, and Anscochrome at least. Possibly some other types), a little slide viewer, a scanner, and a digital SLR. So, for instance, I could take a picture of my LCD with the two types of slides sitting on it with /p/ up on the screen open to this thread.

I'm inclined to just think you're a troll, though, given that you're saying things like how I lack credibility while apparently confusing E6 in general with Velvia in particular.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>266492

I'd be interested in a comparison of the two purely because I am nosey.
>> Anonymous
I prefer Fuji slides myself.
>> Anonymous
OP here.
they had this stuff next to the t max. i was gunna get a roll of both but i wanted to try this stuff.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>266495
Sure thing!

First up, the Kodachrome. Nice bright colors, greens of summer, makes you think all the world's a summer's day, oh yeah. Well, except the original photo was blurry and poorly exposed and I didn't put that much effort into scanning it, but still.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>266517
And the Ektachrome. Gives us those faded colors, gives us the reds of summer, makes you think all the world's an apocalyptic wasteland, oh yeah.
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
>>266509
Try the Ilfords as well, they're b&w film and I find them to be better than the Kodaks, the fp4, hp5, deltas.

But my favourite is the Pan F, 50asa film, ultra fine grain.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
And here's a picture of my desktop with these two slides sitting on it. Note the mounts on both of them say "Processed by Kodak" I.e., they were both professionally processed by the guys who know Kodachrome and E-2 (this being from the 50s and therefore before E6) best. I'm guessing they're from about the same vintage and stored similarly, since they were together in the box.

Now, like I said, I have no idea if modern E6 slide films have progressed past this, but I doubt that they're as good as Kodachrome since they're using the same basic technology they have since the beginning.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.5Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8Serial Number1120716803Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:30 18:35:57Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/6.4Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1936Image Height1288RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeSmallFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingNormalMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Color Matrix129
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
And now I'm gonna go out and try to actually take some damn pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>266520
thanks anon


i'll have to go back tomorrow and rummage through the shelves some more.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
I'll post some of my parents 25+ yr old stuff too
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>266522
/r/ing more photos of your work area\environment.
I don't know why, but I'm pretty interested in the inner-workings behind the alias: ac
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
Kodachrome
These were all pretty protected from sunlight and kept in a very dry environment aswell.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanoScan 8800FCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:05:01 22:09:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width841Image Height1262White BalanceAuto
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
ac is pretty intense.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>266530
You reported my nintendo thread god damn that was going to be a good thread.
>> Anonymous
Kodachrome flipping rocks. I have 113 rolls of K64 and about 50 rolls K200 left. I have 90 rolls of E-6 also but the Kodachrome is just so vastly superior its absurd.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
125 asa Ektachrome

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanoScan 8800FCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:05:07 20:41:30Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1265Image Height845White BalanceAuto
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>266526

Cheers! A good comparison of the two, especially as they've both been processed by Kodak. I've seen that red toning with some old slides I've come across before.
>> Anonymous
The red shifting is a problem with all E-6 films not just Ekta.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
Velvia I shot less than 1 yr ago (It was overcast)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanoScan 8800FCamera SoftwareMP Navigator EX 1.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:04:30 19:47:39Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1299Image Height874White BalanceAuto
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
Ektachrome, I think 64 ASA, though truthfully I forget

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanoScan 8800FCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:05:07 20:34:50Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1266Image Height858White BalanceAuto
>> Anonymous
>>266541

Why so soft and could have been done in photoshop?

Also, edit out the hair in your scan, you fucktard.
>> Anonymous
>>266539
Not quite though. I have seen the red tint happen in velvia and sensia 100, but stuff like sensia 200 and 400 generally tend towards neon green. There's many different effects to other E6 emulsions, they're not all red. That's all I wanted to point out, not trying to invalidate anything.
>> Anonymous
Oh absolutely. The problems are caused mainly by the dye couplers - which is why Kodachrome lasts so long: no dye couplers. So any film WITH dye couplers will suffer some strange things later in life.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>266543
This pic bites for one, so I didn't retouch it.
And I didn't want to edit the picture lest I skew the color balance
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>266447
So since you haven't responded, I guess the final answer was that you were simply a troll, then?

>>266530
That's... kind of a little creepy, really. But sure, here's an old shot of my desk. Since this, I've moved it across the room and cleaned it up a bit. Although, interestingly enough, there's a couple of boxes of old slides sitting on the desk anyway, from the last batch I scanned. Also, leaning against the divider between the two monitors is my postcard from Pskaught.

>>266532
Yeah, it bugs me when people impugn my honor like that. More than it ought to, given that most of the people doing so are doing it specifically because they think it's fun to watch me fly into a rage. :-/

>>266537
You're welcome.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:11 17:04:27Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0.7 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI FocusDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.720 mWhite BalanceTungstenExposure Compensation5Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-266731312Color Matrix129
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>266533
:o I did no such thing! I would never report you Meese. Don't you remember the pic i draw for you?

>>266615
Ah thats actually pretty cool I guess, ty
>> Anonymous
...so has anyone actually used Kodak Elite Chrome and have they any examples of results from it?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267108
I've used it, but only once and I don't think I got any shots worth actually showing people.
>> Anonymous
>>267111

So no opinions on it either way?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267116
Yeah, I can't really give a firm recommendation one way or the other, having only shot one roll. It looked nice, but I don't know if it looked particularly nicer than, say, Fuji Sensia or Kodak Ektachrome or anything else. I've got a couple more rolls, but I shoot film very, very slowly.
>> Anonymous
>Kodachrome

Goodnight, sweet prince ;__;

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/09/22/kodakchrome.fading.ap/index.html