P3D Re: "Getting used to it"

[Stephen Kearney <slk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with George's point that we judge new things based on what we are
accustomed to seeing. However in the case of Kodachrome part of the
objection in 1951 may have been due the fact that it did look a bit
unnatural. The earlier Kodachrome I've seen had a slightly Technicolor
look; it lacked tonal range and, while not as saturated as today's E-6
films, the lack of subtle tones made it seem saturated. It's a little
hard to articulate, but the '40s and early '50s slides in my collection
have colors that appear strong because there aren't many tonal variations
for each color. I don't know what effects aging may have had on my
samples.

Over the years Kodachrome has been improved. Personally I prefer its
look, which I don't claim as "natural", and dislike the eye popping E-6
films. It's just a matter of how the film companies formulate their
products; E-6 films can look like Kodachrome but people want saturated
colors so that's what Kodak and Fuji sell.


Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> Two issues ago, Stereo World published a letter written in 1951 by
> [...]
> "As a matter of fact I agree with you that most color slides in any
> sizes are usually absolutely distorted in color.  As you say the
> colors are garish, and unless the exposure is right on the nose
> (and it seldom is of course) the result is something never seen
> on Earth before."
>
> I understand the attack to the Realist but here they are attacking
> the Kodachrome, one of the color films that has been praised
> for its accurate color rendition.

_____________________________________
 Stephen Kearney : mailto:slk@xxxxxxxxxx
http://jimkearney.ne.mediaone.net/~slk



------------------------------