[photo-3d] E6 vs. Kodachrome...

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <drt-3d@xxxxxxx>]

Paul Talbot's comments quoted below pretty much sum my
feelings on this on-going debate....

I have posted earlier that a good part of our reactions
regarding image fidelity, etc., is a function of being
accustomed to a "certain look".  

People used to the look of "Autochromes" in the early
20th century (very low contrast subtle color) were
socked when faced with Kodachrome 10.  This reaction
has been preserved in a letter republished in Stereo
World, dating from the early 50s when a famous stereo
photographer (in B&W as it was the long-standing tradition
back then) called the Kodachrome colors "out of this
world" (in a bad sense).

Yes, most people today (myself included) think that the
older Kodachrome was great.

After shooting Fujichrome for a long while, I have the same
reaction as Paul "Yuck!" when I see Kodachrome.  The two
films render colors differently.  I cannot tell which is
more faithful.  They are different.  If you are used to
one, your first reaction is not to like or accept the other.

There is a fellow in the Beta folio of SSA (not in this
list) who always comments on the film used.  If Kodachrome
is used, everything is fine and looks well. If Fujichrome
or E6 chemistry is used then the colors look terrible,
false, exaggerated, etc.  I am convinced that this is 
more of a mental thing than anything else.

George Themelis


Paul Talbot wrote:

>I spent some time trying K25 due to its sterling
>reputation among its proponents.  When I look at any of my
>K25 stereo slides my reaction is usually "Yuck, this looks
>gross!"  My observations from slides I've seen in the Gamma
>folios is that Kodachrome II was gorgeous, but I haven't seen
>anything I like in Kodachrome since. 
>
>> The two qualities that make it so, I think, are color accuracy
>> and crystal sharpness.
>
>Not to start a huge philosophical debate, but as an aspiring
>artist I'm more concerned with pleasing colors than accurate
>colors...  Kodachrome gives me the ugly
>skies I see almost everyday when I go outside, and I just don't
>need to see that ugliness in my photos.
>
>Furthermore, no film can come close to matching the dynamic
>range of our eyes, so to say any film "accurately" records
>colors is just a question of whether the film lies more or
>lies less... Some Kodachrome shots I've seen with
>some types of foliage in them are inaccurate to my eyes in a
>way that makes me think I'm on some frightful foreign planet.