[PRCo] Re: Color Films Tested

[Fred Schneider]

Yup.  And he can still make a film negative and develop same and then  
scan it ... screw the $25,000 digital back.

I don't mind the idea of a better mouse trap ... so it costs 99 cents  
instead of 79 cents.  But I'm going to be very unhappy if I can't  
make a heart pacemaker work because we don't support that technology  
today.

Support only lasts as long as we can make more money on it than we  
can on something new.   Would you really have wanted to buy a new  
Oldsmobile or Kaiser or Graham or Stutz in its last year of production?

On Sep 18, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Bob Rathke wrote:

> I agree completely.
>
> I have a couple of low-end digital cameras which I use like an old
> Instamatic film camera.  At the office I have a new Nikon digital  
> camera
> that cost $1,800 and is great, but I know that a better model will be
> introduced next week, and the week after that, and....
>
> A couple of weeks ago we hired a professional photographer to take  
> some
> photos of our products, and he used an 8"X10" view camera attached  
> to a
> digital back that he said cost $25,000 two years ago.  Now that  
> camera is
> out of production and support is no longer available.
>
> A good point about being able to always view slides, Fred.  And if the
> electric power goes off, you can always go outside and hold up the  
> slides to
> the sky.
>
> Bob 9/18/05
>
> -----------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:06 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Color Films Tested
>
>
>
>> I have not gone digital for one principal reason: LONGEVITY.   Not
>> dye longevity but technology longevity.  Computer technology changes
>> so often that what is in the forefront today is passe tomorrow and
>> can't even be found two days from now.  If I'm sufficiently on top of
>> my collection to reformat everything into tomorrows technology every
>> year, I'm OK but that isn't me.  And I know, for example, that with
>> acid free paper we're good for several hundred years.  With properly
>> processed film, well we still have the Matthew Brady images from the
>> civil war.  But with zeros and ones?  Well, we cannot recover the
>> basic data from the 1960 census because we have destroyed the
>> hardware and / or software needed to read it.  So if, for example, I
>> want to know something that was never computed previously such as the
>> number of oriental females in restaurant management by State from
>> each census, I may be able to do 1940, 1950, 1970,1980, 1990, 2000
>> but I'll have to skip 1960.
>>
>> I have tons of VHS tapes and and now I everything is DVD.  Oh yes,
>> remember phonograph records?  Reel-to-reel tape recordings?  Eight-
>> track tapes?  Cassette tapes in general of all sorts?
>>
>> At least I can look at my slide 40 years from now if I'm still  
>> living.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that the digital results are quite good.  Retouching by
>> means of Photo Shop or other software is easier than air-brushing and
>> brushes that I used to use.  I will go there some day.   I'm
>> obstinate.  I'm not there yet.
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2005, at 6:59 PM, prcopcc at p-r-co.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fred!
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Try this:
>>> .
>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=velvia+provia+astia&btnG=Google
>>> +Search
>>> .
>>> Will try to feret out other responses from Actual Individuals when
>>> I get
>>> home  --  but those responses can take a  *-Weak-*  or two!!
>>> .
>>> Thought you had a Digicam  --  if not, have you considered same?
>>> Results are extremely good  --  John Bromley is sold on the
>>> technology.
>>> You can always software manipulate for desired results.       Most
>>> recent
>>> Canon seems extremely good with negligible noise.
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Jim__Holland
>>> .
>>> .
>>> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>>> .
>>> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject:     [PRCo] Color Films Tested
>>>> Date:     Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:09:58 -0400
>>>> From:     Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>> Reply-To:     pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>>> To:     pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org, Russ Jackson
>>>> <rejmhj at netzero.net>,
>>>> Jack May <Jack.May at americomm.net>, Don Duke
>>>> <trainbook at earthlink.net>,
>>>> Rich Allman <AllmanR at einstein.edu>, Bruce Bente
>>>> <bbente at cytechusa.com>,
>>>> Bill Middleton <wdmiddleton at earthlink.net>, Frank Miklos
>>>> <miklosfrank at comcast.net>, ALAN L SCHNEIDER
>>>> <alschneider2 at juno.com>, John
>>>> Swindler1 <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> Subjective opinion department:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> Because of the gradual lengthening of processing times and  
>>>> rumors of
>>>> its demise, I've been looking for other films that might be  
>>>> suitable
>>>> as a substitute for Kodachrome. I understand that the yellow box is
>>>> hard to beat. There are slides of me romping in Lake Erie at  
>>>> Presque
>>>> Isle 64 years ago that are not noticeably faded. And then there are
>>>> my Ektachromes of Europe taken by me in 1960-61 that are horrible.
>>>> Anscocolor and Anscochrome that dad used in the period from 1946 to
>>>> 1956 have had similar problems with fading of the cyan and  
>>>> yellow dye
>>>> layers. I admit I am leery. But I have been told that most of the
>>>> E-6 compatible films are now good for 75 years and I know I'm no
>>>> longer good for that long, so what the hell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> For want of something better, I started my search not with the  
>>>> yellow
>>>> box but with the green box. Having heard just too much about cash
>>>> losses and staff furloughs including a severe brain drain in
>>>> Rochester, I really wasn't too interested in replacing one Kodak
>>>> product with another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> My first try was the readily available Fuji Velvia. Nice stuff if
>>>> you like high contrast and extreme color saturation. This is  
>>>> clearly
>>>> a film for amateurs. The first few rolls were enough to convince me
>>>> I wasn't all that interested. This is for people who want their
>>>> color to jump off the screen and into their laps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> Second try was Fuji Provia. Ah. Now this is a lower contrast film
>>>> than Velvia but higher contrast than Kodachrome. My thoughts are:
>>>> nice film to keep in inventory for dull days. Provia to bring out
>>>> the foreground and a split gray filter to darken the sky and you've
>>>> got a pretty much unbeatable combination when the weather doesn't
>>>> like you. I think I'll continue to keep some inventoried. I have
>>>> some rather nice images on Provia of ships in the fog in Plaqamines
>>>> Parish south of New Orleans last March.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> The third try was Fuji Astia. Rich Allman and I went out for the
>>>> second day of renewed rail service on SEPTA route 15 in
>>>> Philadelphia. It was one of those absolutely picture perfect
>>>> days ... deep blue sky and fluffy clouds that create a great
>>>> contrast with a polarizing filter. Rich told me he had heard Astia
>>>> was so good that it "out Kodachromed Kodachrome." My thoughts are
>>>> that the contrast range is about the same except at the lower end
>>>> where shadow detail is actually a little better on Astia. I could
>>>> see detail in the white paint on Kawasaki cars and in the wheels
>>>> under them. Color saturation is a little stronger on Astia ...  
>>>> maybe
>>>> closer to the now discontinued Kodachrome 25 than Kodachrome 64.
>>>> Grain is supposed to be very fine on Astia --- exceptional for a  
>>>> film
>>>> of 100 ASA --- but I did not get out a microscope. I did not feel
>>>> bothered that any one color was off. I simply liked the results. I
>>>> bought 10 rolls the first time. Would I buy another 10 or 20?
>>>> Yes. But I'm going to be totally honest: I did not take any
>>>> comparison images on Kodachrome. This is a purely subjective
>>>> analysis of Fuji Astia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have not tried the orange box since 1963. Even back in 1960 I had
>>>> less problems with fading with AGFA films than I did with any other
>>>> E3 or E4 processes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>> I welcome anyone else's subjective opinions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>