I agree that those WWII Kodachrome photos look odd. Gamma is off, the colorspace is strange and who knows what else. That's early Kodachrome, but it must have been better than that. Either the scans are wonky, or they did something to them in publication.
Without doing extensive tweaks I did some color work and think they are now closer to what they should be. Not a full fix, but better. See below.
Without doing extensive tweaks I did some color work and think they are now closer to what they should be. Not a full fix, but better. See below.
Attachments
One thing that I wonder is whether they have used a noise reduction algorithm on these after scanning. They just seem a bit too clean grain wise (though they are small so maybe you wouldn't see it at that resolution).
Even 100 ISO slide film still has visible grain, I've never shot anything lower than that.
Pano, I still haven't looked at the originals on my good monitor, but I should do a side by side comparison.
Note I realised that my comment on colour could be mis-interpreted. When I said even when I'm colour blind I can see things are off, I was referring to the colour (in general) on my laptop
It's particularly bad!! Tony.
Had to. They are just too clean even at that small size. They are sharp and clean, for sure. I just wonder if they aren't in some custom color space that didn't get attached. There is plenty of shadow detail, once gamma is correct.
Kind of scary seeing my father in full color in 1943 or so, I have a few of these in my family archives. The ones I have are from leave in Capri (he was part of Catch 22
the bombardier).
Last edited:
Cool that he could get hold of Kodachrome during the war.
Also impressive are the full 8 x 10 format prints taken to confirm damage. He saved a few of those too even though they don't exactly make for pleasant memories.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
35mm, my favourite was Kodachome 64 but I never really had the skill to keep within it's narrow latitude. Colour print was out, too difficult to ensure colour fidelity through to print. For negative film I'd only use monochrome, my favourite being Ilford.
Later on I moved to Fujichrome and found I liked it better than Kodachrome64 because of the easier to use latitude. In this case I had switched up to roll film too, a Twin Lens Reflex.
I would love to have a TLR again, but would want it to be digital.
Later on I moved to Fujichrome and found I liked it better than Kodachrome64 because of the easier to use latitude. In this case I had switched up to roll film too, a Twin Lens Reflex.
I would love to have a TLR again, but would want it to be digital.
Attachments
Last edited:
My first camera was a TLR, but I've never taken a real photo with it. It was a bent one that my grandfather gave me when I was probably about 3. A voightlander brilliant. I used to go around the house pretending to take pictures of things.
Attached are two pics of it. I took it into a camera shop a while back to get it looked at, but the chassis is bent beyond repair, and would be impossible to get a light seal.
Tony.
Attached are two pics of it. I took it into a camera shop a while back to get it looked at, but the chassis is bent beyond repair, and would be impossible to get a light seal.
Tony.
Attachments
The great fashion photographer Cecil Beaton used a Rolleiflex.
Mint Rollei's go for a fortune! Me, I have a Yashicamat.
(somewhere in Brittany at the moment)
I think the financial argument is "it depends". I think if you're love is landscapes, interior photography, travel and for the most part - still subject matter - then certainly film shooting film can get you into amazing second-hand bodies, batteries that last forever, and images that once digitized - are as amazing as full-frame digital.
However, for wild-life photography, people, sports - the flexibility afforded by high-frame-rate and elevated ISO on a digital body is just no match for film.
For a serious hiker/backpacker shooting landscape, I'd shoot Medium Format ; get a Fuji body and a couple of lenses, and be very happy with the work output.
But you can't enjoy any of that until you know how to master Film Economy, making each shutter exposure count - knowing how to expose properly, knowing how to compose in the viewfinder.
However, for wild-life photography, people, sports - the flexibility afforded by high-frame-rate and elevated ISO on a digital body is just no match for film.
For a serious hiker/backpacker shooting landscape, I'd shoot Medium Format ; get a Fuji body and a couple of lenses, and be very happy with the work output.
But you can't enjoy any of that until you know how to master Film Economy, making each shutter exposure count - knowing how to expose properly, knowing how to compose in the viewfinder.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.