[PRCo] Re: Slide color

[Fred Schneider]

And it didn't much matter who processed it [Ektachrome E2] either,  
Bob.   It was eratic.  I have some slides on a roll that are still OK  
and others on the same roll that faded badly.   I never sent it  
out ... processed my own because I was cheap.   Boy the stuff looked  
great when you first looked at it as it dried hanging up in the lab.

I wonder if Kodachrome was in short supply because Eastman Kodak was  
trying to push Ektachrome?   Sort of like the Volkswagen Fox was  
never abundant in the United States because the builder really would  
have rather sold a Golf.

On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Bob Rathke wrote:

> I started taking slides with ASA10 Kodachome.  Kodachrome slides  
> that I took
> in the 1950's have held their color very well; I don't recall  
> getting any
> gray (colorless) slides on dreary days, but with a whopping speed  
> of 10, I
> probably didn't try to take many Kodachrome-10 photos on overcast  
> days.
>
> When first introduced, Kodachrome II  (ASA25) was in short supply.  It
> wasn't until 1961 that Kodachrome II totally replaced the ASA10  
> type, and
> was widely available.
>
> So...in 1960, to get slide film with a moderate speed, I switched to
> Ektachrome (ASA32) - but fortunately only for a year until I could get
> Kodachrome II.  By the mid-1960's my 1960-era Ektachome slides  
> experienced a
> drasatic color shirft.  Fortunately, today's computer software can  
> correct
> the color in those old Ektachome slides.
>
> Bob 12/30/06
>
> -----------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Galt" <galtfd at att.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:01 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Tylerdale
>
>
>> On 29 Dec 2006 at 22:29, Fred Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> I truly suspect that the colors in that picture are as close as
>>> you're going to get to realism and that the red and cream streetcar
>>> is the only object on a gray day that had any color other than
>>> various intensities of gray.
>>>
>>
>> Like you, Fred, I had plenty of experience with Kodachrome II but  
>> none
>> with its
>> predecessor.
>>
>> Seriously, though, I don't think we are looking at a slide.  
>> Rather, at a
>> low-
>> resolution 120 print that has been touched up - quite expertly! -  
>> by a
>> colourist. It looks so very much like some of the better of the b&w
>> pictures
>> that I used to take as a child. The tinges of in the snow look to  
>> be done
>> by a
>> human hand, and the tinting isn't as crisp as the photo itself. The
>> yellowish
>> cast to the entire picture could possibly come from the camera but  
>> could
>> just
>> as likely be due to a subtle wash. 1707 may well be the only vivid  
>> object
>> in
>> the photo. Not that vivid, though, not in this unpromising light.
>>
>> I can't prove it - just my hunch. As I said, if a tint job, a  
>> skilful one.
>>
>> The colour quality available to the well-heeled photographer as  
>> long ago
>> as 6
>> decades is seen in the Washington Interurban photos in Bill Volkmer's
>> Pittsburgh Area book. A couple of them claim to date from 1944. In  
>> any
>> case,
>> the Washington city pictures are obviously no later than their stated
>> 1952-3.
>> Oh, if only we had a few more like them! Or a few dozen more.
>>
>> Don Galt
>>
>>
>
>