From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:59:16 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul30.042708.17294@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, monson@sardine.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson) writes:

> In article <1992Jul29.064134.28454@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:

> >I have. Every time I've tried Kodachrome. The real answer to this is
> >of course that "good colors" is a very subjective thing. I think my
> >Kodachrome has been properly processed each time as the rolls more or
> >less looks the same. In spite of that, I've never liked the results.
> >The contrast is much too high. The colors are muted and wrong and at the
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    Contrast high/colors muted? Sounds like a contradiction. But I'm
>    sure the problem is that I'm not interpreting your words the way
>    you intended. What's happening with your pictures?

You're most likely interpreting my words I intended. Contrast has very little
to do with color, unless we're talking about color contrast. Contrast here
is the difference between light and dark areas. This has nothing to do with
how saturated the colors are. A low contrast film may have very saturated
colors. It's just that no film I know of has it. A high contrast film may
have muted colors. Kodachrome is about the only one I know of in this
regard.

> >same time too bright in some sense. Especially skin colors and foliage
> >looks wrong on Kodachrome. It is as if there was a layer of something
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  I don't understand your problem with the skin colors - most people seem to
>  find Kodachrome's rendering of flesh tones pleasing.
>  Are you having the same problem under all lighting conditions?

Yes. While many people may find Kodachrome's skin colors "pleasing", many
people would also agree that they doesn't look "right". Note the difference
between "pleasing" and "right" (as in "they way the look in real life").
I think they're too pink/orange. An Agfachrome RS50 or a Fujichrome 50
slide is closer to real life, although still not completely "right".

>  Your criticism of foliage is perfectly legitimate, in my opinion. 
>   I find that the best greens are produced with E6 films.

Yes, but this has very little to do with the E-6 process as such. It's
mostly a function of the films.

>     At times I have problems with my slides, too. On occasion, I
>     write a nice letter to the processing lab explaining my reason for 
>     being displeased with an image, and I send a sample slide along
>     with the letter. On one occasion, the (then Kodak) lab sent back
>     a very helpful response. On another occasion, they admitted a goof
>     and sent me a free roll of film. (that wasn't bad- they only screwed up
>     on the one slide.) On another occasion, with another lab, I got
>     a thoroughly incompetent response.(That was the Palo Alto facility-
>     what a turkey farm! But I digress.)
>     Anyway, my point is that if you are unhappy with the way your slides
>     turned out, try writing to the lab that processed the film. It
>     won't cost you much, you might get some useful information -
>     or you might get some free film!  :-)

Kodachrome has always looked the same to me, no matter what lab I've used.
Mind you, very few labs but Kodak's own develop Kodachrome in this part
of the world. I've had Kodachrome developed in Sweden, Germany and France
with identical results. Nowadays, I don't think writing a letter to the lab
would help much. I do my own E-6 processing.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22