Forums :: Resources :: Features :: Photo Gallery :: Vintage Radio Shows :: Archives
Support This Site: Contributors :: Advertise


It is currently Jul Mon 22, 2019 12:59 pm


All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post New Topic Post Reply  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Mon 17, 2019 8:16 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr Thu 21, 2011 2:00 am
Posts: 3988
Location: Georgia, 30236
I can see why the current available films appeal to you, if you feel that fineness of grain makes no difference. Kodachrome 64 for me was fine enough for realist format transparencies, but Kodachrome 25 was necessary for View Master transparencies as it was of a finer grain. It is possible to use the coarser films for those purposes, but being able to see the coarser transparencies and Kodachrome transparencies and compare them, it is easy to see why for many, the films currently available have put many off taking stereo slides. Looking at the current prices of stereo cameras tell me that many others feel the way I do about the hobby.

_________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
— Arthur C. Clarke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Mon 17, 2019 8:54 pm 
Member

Joined: Aug Wed 24, 2011 4:35 am
Posts: 4431
Location: Sunnyvale CA
19&41 wrote:
I can see why the current available films appeal to you, if you feel that fineness of grain makes no difference. Kodachrome 64 for me was fine enough for realist format transparencies, but Kodachrome 25 was necessary for View Master transparencies as it was of a finer grain..


I think all current color transparencies films have less grain that Kodachrome 25 or 64. Kodachrome's value was in the color rendition - lots of contrast, moderate saturation, and realistic color reproduction, red and green being slightly elevated but almost always perfectly plausible. Velvia has less grain but cartoon colors, which works OK to pump up landscapes, but has no application for general photography. I haven't tried the new Ektachrome, and probably won't unless my D7200 breaks.

I agree that this wasn't the case in the past, when Viewmaster was still in operation, but that was a very very long time ago in technology terms.

I would also note that digital cameras are generally FAR, FAR better at color rendition than any film, and the pixel size has gotten to the point that it is a negligible factor compared to 35mm. Which is why we are arguing over the type of leather used for buggy whips, at least for general photographic applications.

Brett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Mon 17, 2019 9:29 pm 
Member

Joined: Apr Tue 17, 2012 7:58 pm
Posts: 113
Location: Metamora MI, 48455
Brett_Buck wrote:
19&41 wrote:
I can see why the current available films appeal to you, if you feel that fineness of grain makes no difference. Kodachrome 64 for me was fine enough for realist format transparencies, but Kodachrome 25 was necessary for View Master transparencies as it was of a finer grain..


I think all current color transparencies films have less grain that Kodachrome 25 or 64....

Brett


This. All currently manufactured slide films have lower RMS granularity than any iteration of Kodachrome, period. They are superior, with regard to grain, to any iteration of Kodachrome. Color rendition is debatable, I happen to like the look of Ektachrome, others prefer the look of Kodachrome.

The modern Ektachrome is nothing like circa ~59 160 ASA Ektachrome which a lot of older photographers seem to immediately think of. They're entirely different stocks with entirely different characteristics. They're both slide films, and they share a name. That's where the similarities more or less end.

The same argument can be made with Kodachrome. The ASA 10 Kodachrome from the 1950s was an entirely different beast than the later K-14 process ASA 64 or ASA 25 stocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Tue 18, 2019 1:56 am 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 13815
Location: S. Dartmouth MA 02748-1225 USA
I'll offer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... phic_films

Pick any one in current production one will likely find users opinions.

As for 35mm cameras, Ha,ha I was at the local discount store (not a chain) and accidentally found a 35 MM fixed lens camera, new 2019, China, with a flash for $11.99!

I have not seen any film camera in years, now they are making a comeback?

These Google search terms have interesting side topic results: [Current manufacture color film brands]...

I am still burning up, ever so slowly, a 36 exp roll Ektar 100 print. I did get a bit sloppy with a couple of shots but I am hoping for a few good pix. I plan to get the scans as well as pix. Sorry none are stereo. None the less exploring the film will be beneficial when loading a pair of cameras for Stereo.

IMHO I think film photography will enjoy a sustained Renaissance. Some rediscovering other's finding it new.

There is an interest in shooting manual with a digital camera and adapting for a film lens. I think this is both good and bad. The bad is some adaptations/cameras require destruction to the iris feedback pin on the rear of the lens, rendering it useless for a film camera :(

Chas

_________________
Smith's Ale Gives Strength, Smith Bros. Brewers, New Bedford MA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Tue 18, 2019 4:13 am 
Member

Joined: Aug Wed 24, 2011 4:35 am
Posts: 4431
Location: Sunnyvale CA
benman94 wrote:
Brett_Buck wrote:
19&41 wrote:
I can see why the current available films appeal to you, if you feel that fineness of grain makes no difference. Kodachrome 64 for me was fine enough for realist format transparencies, but Kodachrome 25 was necessary for View Master transparencies as it was of a finer grain..


I think all current color transparencies films have less grain that Kodachrome 25 or 64....

Brett


This. All currently manufactured slide films have lower RMS granularity than any iteration of Kodachrome, period. They are superior, with regard to grain, to any iteration of Kodachrome. Color rendition is debatable, I happen to like the look of Ektachrome, others prefer the look of Kodachrome.


I haven't seen the new Ektacrhome, but I did see the later iterations of pre-discontinuation Ektachrome where they were attempting to copy Velvia with similar results. My point was that the grain has been low enough for decades now, so making it finer - but screwing up the colors in the process - is a bad choice.

I also note that the most popular B&W film is still Tri-X, which is very forgiving, has memorable and famous tone rendition - and is probably the grainiest film you can currently buy.

I think there will almost always be a market for film, just like there is a market for art canvas. As far as technical quality for even the pickiest 35mm user has long been surpassed by digital. It was a dead medium for press and most other hand-held photography when the Nikon D1 came out.

I don't see anything that yet matches up to 120 or even less so, 4x5. Film is no longer a general recording medium and even a cell phone will give the vast majority of users far better results than they would have ever gotten with 35mm - and it's a heck of a lot more likely to be around when something you want to take a picture of happens.

Film is now essentially only an artistic medium, like oil painting or marble, and that makes the choice a matter of artistic intent.

Brett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stereographic Photography - Any interest here?
PostPosted: Jun Thu 20, 2019 10:48 pm 
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jan Thu 01, 1970 1:00 am
Posts: 717
Location: Houston TX
SteiniteFan wrote:
3. I have found that zooming during each (longish) exposure of a flat subject like a computer screen can give a strong, artificial stereo effect

I found this old example of what I mean. I know that the background is uninteresting (my living room) and is poorly lit.
The stereo effect of the computer display is pretty striking though, I think.
(Positioned for cross-eyed free viewing.)
Attachment:
Calculus - cross-eyed.jpg
Calculus - cross-eyed.jpg [ 134.34 KiB | Viewed 62 times ]

_________________
Walter


Top
 Profile  
 
Post New Topic Post Reply  [ 26 posts ]  Moderator: Alan Voorhees Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Borisljek, Dave Doughty, Eddy, k9uwa, lexrageorge, Marinajek, Tarpawns and 13 guests



Search for:
Jump to:  


























Privacy Policy :: Powered by phpBB