Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Colour was always the goal of photography, however the colour print was the Holy Grail of photography and when they became commercially viable in the mid 60's, they pretty much killed the consumer slide business. People want prints, always have, always will. It was the C22 process, BTW. William Robb
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/13/2005 7:12:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul Aha, googled. I-photo is Mac. What do people use for PCs? At the George Lepp workshop I went to many long months ago, he actually recommended Powerpoint. I have an older version which I don't think does the things his did. He showed two digital slide shows. They were cool. (I think he had a digital projector for the crowd.) What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe I use Nerovision Express (part of the Nero Burning ROM suite). Very simple, but works well. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
From: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] When one door closes, another is opened. ;) Avoiding the splinters sticking out of the door frame is the trick. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
my Nikon scanner does oversampling in the driver. every doubling of passes adds about 1 bit of resolution. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:59:10PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: doubling the number of frames ought to reduce the noise by a factor of 2 Sqrt(2), shirley?
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
That's correct. But it doesn't add one bit of signal; the noise level increases as well. That's where the sqrt factor comes from. On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 07:08:07AM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: my Nikon scanner does oversampling in the driver. every doubling of passes adds about 1 bit of resolution. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:59:10PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: doubling the number of frames ought to reduce the noise by a factor of 2 Sqrt(2), shirley?
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
doubling the number of samples increases the SNR by 1 bit assuming that there is only thermal noise and that noise temperature remains constant across samples. what measure you use for SNR determines by what factor the number increases. Herb... - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There That's correct. But it doesn't add one bit of signal; the noise level increases as well. That's where the sqrt factor comes from.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
i take that back. i was looking in the wrong reference. Herb - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:21 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There doubling the number of samples increases the SNR by 1 bit assuming that there is only thermal noise and that noise temperature remains constant across samples. what measure you use for SNR determines by what factor the number increases. Herb... - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There That's correct. But it doesn't add one bit of signal; the noise level increases as well. That's where the sqrt factor comes from.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
No, Herb - you're just plain wrong. Check your statistics textbooks. The signal-to-noise ratio in the sum of n random samples is increased by a factor of sqrt(n) over the signal-to-noise ratio in a single sample. So if you add N bits of resolution, you don't get all of that as signal; it's N/2 bits of signal, and N/2 bits of noise. Or to put it another way, doubling the number of samples increases the SNR by 0.5 bits. And that's the best you can do. If quantisation error is a significant contributor (which it is down in the lower sample levels) you don't get any improvement in that, no matter how much oversampling you do. So in practice you don't even get that sqrt(n) improvement in the parts of the image that are most affected by noise. On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 07:21:14PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: doubling the number of samples increases the SNR by 1 bit assuming that there is only thermal noise and that noise temperature remains constant across samples. what measure you use for SNR determines by what factor the number increases. Herb... - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There That's correct. But it doesn't add one bit of signal; the noise level increases as well. That's where the sqrt factor comes from.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
frank theriault wrote: On 9/12/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, Kodachrome is certain to be one of the fastest ones to be discontinued. niche product in an already niche market. slide film accounted for about 2% of Fuji's film sales in 2003. You raise an interesting point, Herb. When I was a kid (like early 60's) my dad (who shot with a Yashica A tlr - the poor man's Mat, which was the poor man's Rolleiflex g) shot probably 80% chrome. He'd set up the projector, tape a sheet on the wall (we were too poor for a proper screen) and we'd all sit down to look at a new set of slides. When he did shoot prints, it was inevitably bw. I recall that when I got my first 35mm camera, I shot a lot of chrome, a lot of bw prints, and pretty much no colour prints. So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Any thoughts? cheers, frank Frank, That's pretty much the way I shoot today, although I shoot primarily BW. Chromes are my standard colour films, I only shoot colour neg when I need lots of speed, or I get a bunch really cheap (Gotta love $1 Likon 200). I'd have to say the death of the slideshow killed chromes for most folks. People like prints. -Adam
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Damn, I didn't know anything happened to chrome. If it disappeared then what are all those rolls in my refrigerator? What's in all those yellow boxes on my desk? What are those rolls in my cameras? Now I'm confused. Tom (Give me ektachrome or give me death) Reese
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn, I didn't know anything happened to chrome. If it disappeared then what are all those rolls in my refrigerator? What's in all those yellow boxes on my desk? What are those rolls in my cameras? Now I'm confused. Tom (Give me ektachrome or give me death) Reese You're an anachromism rimshot -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Frank said: You raise an interesting point, Herb. When I was a kid (like early 60's) my dad (who shot with a Yashica A tlr - the poor man's Mat, which was the poor man's Rolleiflex g) shot probably 80% chrome. He'd set up the projector, tape a sheet on the wall (we were too poor for a proper screen) and we'd all sit down to look at a new set of slides. When he did shoot prints, it was inevitably bw. I recall that when I got my first 35mm camera, I shot a lot of chrome, a lot of bw prints, and pretty much no colour prints. So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Any thoughts? cheers, frank Well i still see a few at the local pro lab using slide film. My dad in his day shot quite a lot of chrome and we looked forward to the monthly slideshow. I love the results from chrome,but getting a print is a problem. Local pro lab does interneg and i can see the loss in the reprint,plus its a bit expensive. Aaron is closer but its still an hour trip plus gas. His scans are pretty good. He did a cople of 11x14's in July for me. Dave (loves a good 6x7 chrome)Brooks
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
From: frank theriault You're an anachromism I'm going to let that slide for now. The transparency of your motive speaks for itself. Tom (the ektamorph) Reese
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well i still see a few at the local pro lab using slide film. My dad in his day shot quite a lot of chrome and we looked forward to the monthly slideshow. I love the results from chrome,but getting a print is a problem. Local pro lab does interneg and i can see the loss in the reprint,plus its a bit expensive. Aaron is closer but its still an hour trip plus gas. His scans are pretty good. He did a cople of 11x14's in July for me. Dave (loves a good 6x7 chrome)Brooks People still do Interneg? Gah. I'd have thought the Frontiers and Noritsu's would have killed that off by now. Any modern processor can scan/print 35mm chromes as easily as reprinting negs, and if they can print 120 neg, they'll be able to scan/print 120 chromes as well. And there's always Ilfochrome/Cibachrome for the high-quality prints. -Adam
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
My father shot transparencies almost exclusively, and I took up where he left off. I still have a lot of slides I shot when I was only ten years old or so. Most of them are 127 Ektachrome. My dad shot 6x6 ektachrome with an Agfa. We had a projector that cold handle both and reviewed them frequently. Reliving vacations was the high point. I started shooting for car magazines in the mid seventies, at the same time that my kids were born. So again I shot lots of transparency film, both for publication and the family pics. I bought the best Kodak carousel and entertained the kids with pictures of themselves. I worked full time as a high school English teacher in those days and served as photographer to the school football team. Every week I presented a slide show for the team, which was always a big hit. Eventually I moved to New York to work full time for a magazine and photography became more of a job and less of a hobby. I was commuting three hours a day and travelling a lot! , and the slide projector stayed in the closet. It remained packed away until last year, when I pulled it out and found some carousels full of 1970s kid pics. We had some fun watching them once again, but it seemed like a lot of work. I haven't taken it out again. I think we've been spoiled by the convenience of contemporary entertainments. I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul frank theriault wrote: On 9/12/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, Kodachrome is certain to be one of the fastest ones to be discontinued. niche product in an already niche market. slide film accounted for about 2% of Fuji's film sales in 2003. You raise an interesting point, Herb. When I was a kid (like early 60's) my dad (who shot with a Yashica A tlr - the poor man's Mat, which was the poor man's Rolleiflex g) shot probably 80% chrome. He'd set up the projector, tape a sheet on the wall (we were too poor for a proper screen) and we'd all sit down to look at a new set of slides. When he did shoot prints, it was inevitably bw. I recall that when I got my first 35mm camera, I shot a lot of chrome, a lot of bw prints, and pretty much no colour prints. So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Any thoughts? cheers, frank Frank, That's pretty much the way I shoot today, although I shoot primarily BW. Chromes are my standard colour films, I only shoot colour neg when I need lots of speed, or I get a bunch really cheap (Gotta love $1 Likon 200). I'd have to say the death of the slideshow killed chromes for most folks. People like prints. -Adam
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: frank theriault You're an anachromism I'm going to let that slide for now. The transparency of your motive speaks for itself. You don't fool me. I expect to see you make a complete reversal of your position very soon. Mark (The Chrome-Magnon Man)
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't fool me. I expect to see you make a complete reversal of your position very soon. Mark (The Chrome-Magnon Man) Are you positive? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Funnily enough the first Pentax I bought -- an H3, was bought because it was more versatile for slides than the Rolleiflex T that was my other choice. As a mostly snapshot, family diary sort of shooter, the thing that killed slides for me was children, and grandparents wanting copies/prints/and so on. Also, as Kodacolor became a mass market, the price differential turned around an it became cheaper to take a roll of prints than a roll of slides. That was also about the time that the carousel got dropped in a move and broke a condenser lens. I couldn't figure out how to get it fixed economically and gave up. I thought for a while that slide film might enjoy a resurgence with film scanning, but digital cameras seem to have put pad to that. Instant e-mail has eliminated the need for double prints. Also going though the scans on the laptop is hugely more rewarding than holding the slides up to the lapshade to see if there's something there. J,W.L. . - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:12 AM Subject: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There On 9/12/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, Kodachrome is certain to be one of the fastest ones to be discontinued. niche product in an already niche market. slide film accounted for about 2% of Fuji's film sales in 2003. You raise an interesting point, Herb. When I was a kid (like early 60's) my dad (who shot with a Yashica A tlr - the poor man's Mat, which was the poor man's Rolleiflex g) shot probably 80% chrome. He'd set up the projector, tape a sheet on the wall (we were too poor for a proper screen) and we'd all sit down to look at a new set of slides. When he did shoot prints, it was inevitably bw. I recall that when I got my first 35mm camera, I shot a lot of chrome, a lot of bw prints, and pretty much no colour prints. So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Any thoughts? cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
You're an anachromism I'm going to let that slide for now. The transparency of your motive speaks for itself. You don't fool me. I expect to see you make a complete reversal of your position very soon. Why can't you be more positive? Tom Reese
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't you be more positive? Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain truth to what he says. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain truth to what he says. That should have been a grain ~of~ truth... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
In a message dated 9/13/2005 7:12:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul Aha, googled. I-photo is Mac. What do people use for PCs? At the George Lepp workshop I went to many long months ago, he actually recommended Powerpoint. I have an older version which I don't think does the things his did. He showed two digital slide shows. They were cool. (I think he had a digital projector for the crowd.) What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/13/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain truth to what he says. That should have been a grain ~of~ truth... You're losing it Frank. That's what happens when you're overexposed to this kind of thing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Why can't you be more positive? Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain (of) truth to what he says. I don't like the way this thread is developing. I need to limit my exposure. Tom
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're losing it Frank. That's what happens when you're overexposed to this kind of thing. My mind's a blur... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My mind's a blur... Wait, those are my photos. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe I use a free Hamrik program called Vuescan. It s about 500k and only does slide show. No rotate, adjustments. etc. For the on site slide shows i use Vueprint. You can rotate and adjust brightness print etc,for the client. That one is not free.g Dave
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain truth to what he says. That should have been a grain ~of~ truth... You're losing it Frank. That's what happens when you're overexposed to this kind of thing. Keep your focus Frank, I shutter to think about the results if you don't. After all, I think you can compensate for it. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/13/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't be so sensitive. There's a grain truth to what he says. That should have been a grain ~of~ truth... You're losing it Frank. That's what happens when you're overexposed to this kind of thing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 9/13/05, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep your focus Frank, I shutter to think about the results if you don't. After all, I think you can compensate for it. Focus? What's that? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
Irfanview, it's free. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/13/2005 7:12:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul Aha, googled. I-photo is Mac. What do people use for PCs? At the George Lepp workshop I went to many long months ago, he actually recommended Powerpoint. I have an older version which I don't think does the things his did. He showed two digital slide shows. They were cool. (I think he had a digital projector for the crowd.) What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On 13/9/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Are you positive? This is a complete reversal of his position. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
For newbies to Irfanview, it's worth knowing that the program is very configurable (in Properties, in the Options menu, and in Display Options, in the View menu). For instance, slideshows can be configured to start with the last slideshow you watched, or with a clean slate based on the current directory. It's worth playing around to set it up exactly as you want it, especially as it's a small program, and loads almost instantly. John On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:35:46 +0100, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irfanview, it's free. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/13/2005 7:12:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul Aha, googled. I-photo is Mac. What do people use for PCs? At the George Lepp workshop I went to many long months ago, he actually recommended Powerpoint. I have an older version which I don't think does the things his did. He showed two digital slide shows. They were cool. (I think he had a digital projector for the crowd.) What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.23/99 - Release Date: 12/09/2005
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
You can also use it to build self contained slide shows and screen savers, royalty free. John Forbes wrote: For newbies to Irfanview, it's worth knowing that the program is very configurable (in Properties, in the Options menu, and in Display Options, in the View menu). For instance, slideshows can be configured to start with the last slideshow you watched, or with a clean slate based on the current directory. It's worth playing around to set it up exactly as you want it, especially as it's a small program, and loads almost instantly. John On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:35:46 +0100, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irfanview, it's free. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/13/2005 7:12:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can put together an I-photo slide show in a matter of seconds and watch it play automatically. The projector is probably doomed to sit in the closet. Paul Aha, googled. I-photo is Mac. What do people use for PCs? At the George Lepp workshop I went to many long months ago, he actually recommended Powerpoint. I have an older version which I don't think does the things his did. He showed two digital slide shows. They were cool. (I think he had a digital projector for the crowd.) What do people use for the PC to create a digital slide show? (From digital camera, or scanned stuff.) Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
It was the social stigma of inviting people round for a slide show! Cruelled by all those Uncle Joe's who sat people down for three hours of Auntie Mabel half-obscuring some famous monument, which was usually out of focus and appeared to be growing out of her head. And, let's not forget the millions of shots of people either pushing the Leaning Tower of Pisa further or trying to stop it falling down John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:12 PM Subject: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There SNIP So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it. Any thoughts? cheers, frank SNIP
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
you guys have been punishingly transparent, even when you put a positive spin on things. when i was learning, i shot BW. this was easy and convenient as my father had a permanently set up BW darkroom downstairs. when we moved from that house, i changed over to about 50% slides, 30% color print, and 20% BW. when i went away to school, i either shot BW for the school paper or color print for myself. when i started out trying to make money, i went to 70% slides and 30% digital. when the *istD came out, i started at 90% digital and 10% slides and abandoned the slides after a month. Herb - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:12 AM Subject: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There You raise an interesting point, Herb. When I was a kid (like early 60's) my dad (who shot with a Yashica A tlr - the poor man's Mat, which was the poor man's Rolleiflex g) shot probably 80% chrome. He'd set up the projector, tape a sheet on the wall (we were too poor for a proper screen) and we'd all sit down to look at a new set of slides. When he did shoot prints, it was inevitably bw. I recall that when I got my first 35mm camera, I shot a lot of chrome, a lot of bw prints, and pretty much no colour prints. So, what killed chromes? The advent of C41? I can't believe that alone did it. Because while it certainly made colour prints economical for the snapshot consumer, the price differential didn't kill black and white, it merely wounded it.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
E-6 chemistry will be around for a while, in small, variable quality, and expensive rolls, since there are multiple suppliers. Kodachrome's days are numbered. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There Damn, I didn't know anything happened to chrome. If it disappeared then what are all those rolls in my refrigerator? What's in all those yellow boxes on my desk? What are those rolls in my cameras?
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
negatives scan much better than slides. Velvia is very hard, even among slides, while Kodachrome and Nikons don't get along. Herb - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:03 AM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There People still do Interneg? Gah. I'd have thought the Frontiers and Noritsu's would have killed that off by now. Any modern processor can scan/print 35mm chromes as easily as reprinting negs, and if they can print 120 neg, they'll be able to scan/print 120 chromes as well. And there's always Ilfochrome/Cibachrome for the high-quality prints.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
At 09:31 PM 9/13/2005, Herb Chong wrote: E-6 chemistry will be around for a while, in small, variable quality, and expensive rolls, since there are multiple suppliers. Kodachrome's days are numbered. My favorite films are already gone anyway. Kodak made an ultra-fine grain negative film with an ISO of 25, if I'm not mistaken. It's been so long since I could get it that I forget the details of it, but I believe it was the finest grained color negative film that Kodak ever made for pictorial use. I used to love Kodak's Technical Pan BW, and I believe it's gone as well. (I used to buy that in 150' bulk rolls.) I loved the ultra-fine grain. The deeply extended red response gave my images a certain tonality that I liked as well. I also loved Kodachrome 25. I shot much more of it than I ever did of Kodachrome 64. Some of the best scenics I have ever taken were on Kodachrome 25. I can remember reading several years ago about a photographer lamenting the loss of Kodachrome 8x10 sheet film. I've never seen any in person, but I imagine the images you could create with 8x10 Kodachrome would be fantastic. Looking back over history, it occurs to me that there were several changes in gear and materials that many people mourned. The large format boys mourned the (near) death of their format. Even the medium users I think complained about those new miniature 35 mm cameras. ;) As for film, we lost the large format Kodachrome, as I mentioned. This was followed by the discontinuation of many other types of film held precious in the minds of many photographers. Today, digital cameras of all sorts are pushing out film cameras (as well as film itself). I guess the point is, no matter what we lose, there always seems to be something else that comes along which allows photographers to create stunning images, and to share their unique vision of the world. I'll miss certain types of film, and I'll miss certain cameras, but at least I won't have to worry about giving up photography for a very long time to come indeed. When one door closes, another is opened. ;) take care, Glen
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
based on my eyeballs, my *istD has less noise than Kodachrome 25. Herb - Original Message - From: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:28 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There My favorite films are already gone anyway. Kodak made an ultra-fine grain negative film with an ISO of 25, if I'm not mistaken. It's been so long since I could get it that I forget the details of it, but I believe it was the finest grained color negative film that Kodak ever made for pictorial use.
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
At 10:32 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote: based on my eyeballs, my *istD has less noise than Kodachrome 25. Herb Has anyone ever tried taking several shots of a stationary subject, with your camera on a tripod, and then averaging the frames together in software? I wonder if that could possibly make ISO 200 look even more noise-free than it currently is? (Of course, I'm not suggesting that this is practical.) Maybe ISO 200 on the Pentax is as good as it can get, in regards to noise? I was mainly wondering why the Pentax didn't go to ISO 100 or lower. It would be good for some slow shutter effects. take care, Glen
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
well, doubling the number of frames ought to reduce the noise by a factor of 2, assuming that thermal noise is all that you are seeing. i think that at ISO 200, on a 6MP sensor, there isn't anything to be gained that couldn't be more easily gained by using a better DSP and better circuit design. the Nikon D2X fits 12MP into a sensor the same size as the D100, which is the same sensor used in the *istD, and reputedly gets better noise characteristics. Herb - Original Message - From: Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:44 PM Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There Has anyone ever tried taking several shots of a stationary subject, with your camera on a tripod, and then averaging the frames together in software? I wonder if that could possibly make ISO 200 look even more noise-free than it currently is?
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:59:10PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: doubling the number of frames ought to reduce the noise by a factor of 2 Sqrt(2), shirley?
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On Sep 14, 2005, at 12:42 AM, Adam Maas wrote: I'd have to say the death of the slideshow killed chromes for most folks. People like prints. Now people plug their digicams into the TV. We've gone full circle. - Dave
Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Any modern processor can scan/print 35mm chromes as easily as reprinting negs, and if they can print 120 neg, they'll be able to scan/print 120 chromes as well. I spoke to the guy who runs an Agfa D-Lab and they found that the software in the machine is too boneheaded to be able to scan slides easily. They can scan/print mounted 35mm slides and that's it, even though the machine can easily handle 120 negs. Cheers, - Dave
