[photo-3d] Re: Accuracy Debate

[Rob <lilindn@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> To me these may be the best posts on the subject.  I
> would add to Gary's comment that it is quite probable
> that different users remember colors (and pretty much
> everything they experience) somewhat differently.  So
> some people may find Kodachrome jives better with their
> visual recollection, though apparently Fuji's research
> shows their colors jive better with the memories of the
> majority of consumers.

   I find it interesting that throughout this thread people have been
under the assumption that all Fuji E6 films are of vivid saturation, and
that all Kodak slide films are less saturated.  On the contrary, both
manufacturers offer a line of slide films with differing degrees of
saturation, for different purposes.
   First are the films of moderate to slightly increased saturation,
Kodak EPN 100 is about the lowest, Agfachromes, Kodachromes, Fujichrome
Astia and Sensia II 100 fit this group as well.  These films (yes, there
are differences between them), tend to show "natural" colors, and will
only show vivid color if there was vivid color in the original subject. 
Kodak tends to think that these are "special purpose" films, and has not
offered an amateur version of an Ektachrome in this range.  Fuji thinks
Astia is the film to use for those who take images of people in slides
(notably fashion photography), and that the moderate saturation of its
close cousin, Sensia II 100, allows for good results in a variety of
conditions, and thus is good general-purpose film for snapshooters.
    Next are the "enhanced" saturation films, including Elitechrome 100,
Kodak E100S and E100SW, Provia 100 (old or new) and the old Sensia 100. 
These films can be proven to produce colors brighter than the original
scene, yet usually not so bright as to be nocitable as "phony".  For
most scenic, product and architectural images, the images shot with
these films will almost always be preferred to those shot with "natural
color" films, but tend to show "too much" of a person's complexion.
    Finally there are the "vivid enhanced" films, E100VS and Velvia,
sometimes called "Disneychromes" for their sometimes obvious departure
from reality.  These films will add zest to artworks and product
photography, and can produce bright color images from scenes in cloudy,
foggy or hazy weather - but don't you dare take pictures of people with
them.
    Personally, I take most of my pictures with films in the second
group, having almost finished using a stock of old Sensia I bought when
it was being discontinued, and not liking the "pull to yellow" I
perceived from Sensia II.  I find that slides from the super-saturated
films often look *less* vivid than those from other films, as when
saturation is pumped up in every part of the scene, those things which
really are saturated (a pink flower of a bright blue ball) look less
so.  Velvia has the (B&W) contrast and density to back it up, but
Elitechrome Extra Color looks like a color TV set with it's color knob
turned all the way to the right, I won't use it again.
     Since the arrival of my daughter, I've been shooting a lot more
Kodachrome.  It is excellent for skin, faithfully captures pink shades
in clothing and flowers other films bend to red or purple, and bright
colored toys are still vivid in the slides.
     There are other rendition characteristics in films beside mere
saturation, and arguments over "most realistic" vs "best" are not at all
new.  The best example of this was when Kodachrome II replaced
Kodachrome in 1961.  Kodak engineers spent tons of money and lab hours
to make a new film that could be shown in the lab to be more realistic,
yet, when KII hit the shelves, many users complained.  Fact was, (old)
Kodachrome was contrasty, had difficulty rendering green, yellow and
blue accurately, and produced warmer colors in the highlights .  The
result was, that cloudscapes were made more dramatic, yellowish-green
got shifted to true green (making grass and trees look healthier),
bright true yellow got shifted to an orangy "schoolbus" yellow (looking
richer), blue got shifted to deep azure (making lake/sea water look
clearer), and shifted beige to warm peach (making pale complexioned
people look just a little tanned), hence, the old Kodachrome was making
slides that, to some users, were better than the real world.  (actually,
the perception of 1950s Kodachrome was similar to what the human eye and
brain perceive in the early morning and late afternoon - our brain
readily corrects for the color balance of the scene as a whole, but
bright red, yellow and orange objects appear brighter because they
reflect more and warmer light).       We would see a similar situation
with Ektachrome-X in 1963 (actually an enhanced color film that would
fit into the second group above, though many surviving EXs have lost
some of their color), and, of course, with Velvia, that could almost
make the Russian Steppe look like Ireland.
    Hence, we have different films for different purposes, from Kodak as
well as Fuji.  Use what you want when you want! 

    Rob
    "Everything I have is Y1.96k compliant"
    (sorry for the long post, but film emulsion history is probably the
aspect of photography in which I am most fanatic)