| |
| | |

Printer Forum   

 Forgot password?
 register
Search
View: 1901|Reply: 48

Scanning Kodak Ektachrome Slides - Your Recommendations Please

[Copy link]

Post time: 2010-2-17 21:27:43 |Show all posts

I am trying to pick the right scanner for scanning photos and slides. I have
1000+ Kodak Ektachrome slides (25-30 years old and still looking great!). I
had read a lot when I was looking last year and kept getting feedback that
most scanners cannot properly scan Kodak Ektachrome slides.
Because technology is constantly evolving, I thought I'd check back and get
updated info. Can you please recommend the best scanner/software package for
scanning Kodak Ektachrome slides. If it matters, I'll be using a PC. Price
(unless it goes into the thousands of dollars) is not an issue. I will also
need to scan non-Ektachrome slides, negatives (Kodak, Fuji, other), and
prints. For the prints, something with a hopper/feeder is probably a good
idea (1000+ prints).

administrator

Post time: 2010-2-18 21:36:03 |Show all posts
In article <wvbrk6kp1g4k.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>>> \KM\ == Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

>
> KM> Here is where you are in error.
>
> KM> The statememt \The main point was that it has survived unfaded.\ is
> KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.
>
>Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
>I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
>objectivity.

And, as already stated, the response to your original statement was to
the effect that you could not actually make such an assessment by eye
that was of any relevance to the previous discussions, due to the
changes in the emulsion over that time. Something you later agreed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 21:09:40 |Show all posts

>>>>> \KM\ == Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
KM> In article <SWVse.1729621$6l.781006@pd7tw2no>, Peter D
KM> <please@?.sk.invalid> writes

>> \Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:xAPCJmGSdtsCFwkO@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
>>> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
>>> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
>>> conclusions at that!

>>
>> And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I \alleged\ that if a
>> person states an opinion

KM> Here is where you are in error.
KM> The statememt \The main point was that it has survived unfaded.\ is
KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.
Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
objectivity.
But I don't want to argue about this any more. You can belive what you
want.
--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.

Post time: 2010-2-18 20:30:12 |Show all posts
In article <SWVse.1729621$6l.781006@pd7tw2no>, Peter D
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xAPCJmGSdtsCFwkO@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
>> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
>> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
>> conclusions at that!

>
>And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I \alleged\ that if a
>person states an opinion

Here is where you are in error.
The statememt \The main point was that it has survived unfaded.\ is not
an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.

>based on the impression of what they see with their
>own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
>possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
>delusional, a liar, or unqualified.

Not for the statement made.

>You haven't.

I don't have to, simply demonstrate that the absolute statement must be
false - something that Ole subsequently agreed when he admitted that he
couldn't even tell if the differences he saw between these old slides
and more recent ones were due to changed in colour balance or because
the older slides had faded.

>Therefore, his original
>statement stands.
>

That would be the original statement that he has subsequently corrected
and modified, would it?

>Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more? :-)
>

Obviously not, otherwise you would have noted through proof by
contradiction that your initial postulate must be wrong.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 20:23:27 |Show all posts
\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xAPCJmGSdtsCFwkO@kennedym.demon.co.uk...

> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
> conclusions at that!

And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I \alleged\ that if a
person states an opinion based on the impression of what they see with their
own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
delusional, a liar, or unqualified. You haven't. Therefore, his original
statement stands.
Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more? :-)

Post time: 2010-2-18 19:24:44 |Show all posts
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:12:51 GMT, \Peter D\ <please@.sk> wrote:

>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>newsPm9a0B1XTsCFwCt@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <9OXre.1692957$Xk.546803@pd7tw3no>, Peter D

>
>>>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>>than yours.
>>>

>> No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.

>
>Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
>stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
>make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
>jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
>he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
>he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
>knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
>produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
>Therefore, his claim stands. :-)
>

No. He categorically stated that it was unfaded. You go and read his
post. He cannot state that if he is just using his eyes.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Post time: 2010-2-18 19:11:49 |Show all posts
In article <n%zse.1723201$6l.443795@pd7tw2no>, Peter D
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>newsPm9a0B1XTsCFwCt@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <9OXre.1692957$Xk.546803@pd7tw3no>, Peter D

>
>>>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>>than yours.
>>>

>> No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.

>
>Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
>stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
>make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
>jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
>he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
>he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
>knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
>produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
>Therefore, his claim stands. :-)
>

From a post earlier in the thread:
Ole writes:
>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.

No qualifications, no limitations, no caveats.
I don't *need* to establish that he is delusional, unqualified or a liar
to dispute that, merely refer him back to his own, original statement,
which is exactly what I did in my reply in the next article in the
thread:
Kennedy writes:
>How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
>have no firm data to back your statement.

Ole may well have expressed his personal opinion as he sees the
comparison in his original statement. My point in commenting was that
his opinion is of little merit in the context of the thread up to that
point because it only addressed his \level of satisfaction\ with the
images, not whether they had faded at all or not. He could not provide
evidence to support his subsequent unqualified statement above which,
unless the slides were stored in very unusual conditions (the exact
requirements of which were unkown at the time they were made) then
fading was inevitable and that such fading has been established by Kodak
themselves as well as independent testers.
On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
conclusions at that!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 18:35:58 |Show all posts
\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsPm9a0B1XTsCFwCt@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <9OXre.1692957$Xk.546803@pd7tw3no>, Peter D


>>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>than yours.
>>

> No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.

Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
Therefore, his claim stands. :-)

Post time: 2010-2-18 18:22:27 |Show all posts
\Hecate\ <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gkv3b1lg9m9e92bfhn0cvqc7ugcclc79o3@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2005 10:10:09 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> wrote:
>
>>You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper
>>context.
>>If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
>>
>>\I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>>for me.\
>>
>>I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
>>difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.

>
> <insert joke about when you last had your eyes tested> ;-)
>
>>Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
>>how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
>>the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
>>the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
>>need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.

>
> The weasel phrase here

Weasel phrase? What utter nonsense. It was an expression of his impressions,
stated truthfully.

> into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is \do not look
> significantly different\. That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
> significantly different.

And it doesn't mean they _are_. Do you have any actual evidence, any
empirical data, to support your claim? If not, maybe you should go get some
or admit that you cannot possibly know better than him what he sees with his
own eyes.

Post time: 2010-2-18 17:53:27 |Show all posts
\Hecate\ <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1r71b19fd058if1idallbucsiv4f2uif52@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:28:05 GMT, \Peter D\ <please@.sk> wrote:
>
>>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aI6IbTCb70rCFwIe@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>>
>>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
>>> have
>>> no firm data to back your statement.

>>
>>Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>>the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>than yours.
>>

> Actually, no it's not.

Actually, yes it is. :-)
He is the only one in a fully-qualified position to make the unequivocal
statement of what he saw with his own eyes and what impressions, if any, his
viewing created. You cannot possibly knwo more about the facts than him.
Unless you can know and demonstrate he is a liar, delusional, or incapable
of assessing the evidence of his own eyes, you cannot make a better claim to
what he saw that he does. That makes his claim stronger.

> Real data measurements will always beat \eye\ measurements because \eye\
> measurements are both subjective and, the
> farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory.

Immaterial. He didn't claim his impression was better than \real data
measurements\. He simply stated the facts as best he knew them. You are the
one that asked ofr \firm data\. Yet you have failed to provide any \firm
data\. All you've done so far is produce repeats of your unqualified
opinion.

> Can you remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?

Immaterial. My memory is not the issue.
HAND :-)

Post time: 2010-2-18 17:33:50 |Show all posts
On 16 Jun 2005 10:10:09 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> wrote:

>You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper context.
>If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
>
>\I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>for me.\
>
>I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
>difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.

<insert joke about when you last had your eyes tested> ;-)

>Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
>how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
>the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
>the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
>need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.

The weasel phrase here (weasel phrases/words are what advertisers add
into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is \do not look
significantly different\. That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
significantly different. No-one is saying that you aren't telling the
truth \as you see it\ - just that your eyes aren't seeing the \whole
picture.\

>Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
>scanner does not show anything special.
>

Try importing the images into Photoshop and use the droppers to see
what co0lours you say are alike have as an RGB value.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Post time: 2010-2-18 16:57:03 |Show all posts
In article <9OXre.1692957$Xk.546803@pd7tw3no>, Peter D
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aI6IbTCb70rCFwIe@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>

>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
>> no firm data to back your statement.

>
>Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>the slides.

And this impression formed on his own eyes is compared against what
reference exactly? His 40 year old memories? I doubt he can remember
every image taken after that time let alone how saturated the original
slide was. Added to that, he has 40 years of cultural education in the
popular media modifying not only his memories of the period but his
expectations of the images.
There is a vast difference between \still acceptable\ and \not faded at
all\, which is the issue I am trying to explain to him. His statement
that these 40 year old slides are indistinguishable from those taken
yesterday suggests the latter, when in actual fact he is only
demonstrating the former - with no indication whatsoever as to how close
to that critical level of acceptability that they actually are nor any
concept of how much longer they are likely to remain so.

>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>than yours.
>

No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.
It is a fact that Ektachrome, particularly Ektachrome from the period
Ole is referring to, fades significantly unless stored at very low
temperatures. This has been confirmed by independent tests and, in the
case of these older films, by Kodak themselves. Claiming that you have
slides on that film from that period which have been stored
conventionally and are indistinguishable from new slides is merely a
statement that your level of acceptability and/or expectation is
unusually low, not an assessment of emulsion longevity.
Nevertheless, Ole's argument does dispute the reference that our Kodak
representative on this thread made - he certainly does still view his
images after 40 years, and he is not alone!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 16:18:05 |Show all posts

You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper context.
If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
\I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me.\
I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.
Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.
Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
scanner does not show anything special.

>>>>> \H\ == Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> writes:

H> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:28:05 GMT, \Peter D\ <please@.sk> wrote:
>> \Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aI6IbTCb70rCFwIe@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>>
>>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
>>> no firm data to back your statement.

>>
>> Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>> the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>> witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>> consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>> properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>> than yours.
>>

H> Actually, no it's not. Real data measurements will always beat \eye\
H> measurements because \eye\ measurements are both subjective and, the
H> farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory. Can you
H> remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?
H> --
H> Hecate - The Real One
H> Hecate@newsguy.com
H> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
H> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.

Post time: 2010-2-18 15:58:27 |Show all posts
In article <wvbry89c1131.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>>> \KM\ == Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

>
> KM> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> KM> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>
> >> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
> >>

> KM> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
> KM> have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
>
>I *said* it was by eye, so I don't really need any firm data to back
>it up, do I?

That is the point I was making - you are relying on your eyes and memory
as the basis of an objective assessment. An image can *look* quite
acceptable even after substantial level of fading and it is only when
you do a side by side comparison of the original that the loss becomes
obvious. You only need to look at the Usenet records of the Epson/Canon
inkjet orange fade issues for examples of that - literally thousands of
owners making claims that these inks were perfectly stable, only to
rescind them a few days or weeks later after making proper comparative
tests.

>As you said yourself in a previous post, the Ektachrome
>emulsion has been improved, so it is difficult to know which
>differences can be attributed to aging, and which are just the
>consequence of using another emulsion.
>

Precisely, and since you can't tell, how can you be sure that your
images are \virtually indistinguishable\ from recent slides? The fact
is you can't. Neither can you determine, by comparing an eye viewed
image with your memory, both modified by cultural expectations of the
images from that period, how much fading has actually occurred. And if
you cannot do that, how can you possibly determine how close to an
objectionable level of fading your examples actually are - or even if
they have actually crossed that level already? How much longer can you
be confident that your original images on Ektachrome slides will
actually last in an acceptable form? Viewing \by eye\ against a the
reference of a filtered memory certainly will not yield any of those
answers.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 14:59:48 |Show all posts
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:28:05 GMT, \Peter D\ <please@.sk> wrote:

>\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aI6IbTCb70rCFwIe@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>

>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
>> no firm data to back your statement.

>
>Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>than yours.
>

Actually, no it's not. Real data measurements will always beat \eye\
measurements because \eye\ measurements are both subjective and, the
farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory. Can you
remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Post time: 2010-2-18 14:03:32 |Show all posts
\Kennedy McEwen\ <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aI6IbTCb70rCFwIe@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>

> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
> no firm data to back your statement.

Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
than yours.

Post time: 2010-2-18 13:22:15 |Show all posts
>>>>> \KM\ == Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
KM> In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
KM> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes

>> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>

KM> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
KM> have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
I *said* it was by eye, so I don't really need any firm data to back
it up, do I? Yes, it has probably degraded, but not so much as to make
much of a difference to my eye, and there is no problem at all
scanning it, and the histograms indicate there is plenty of
information in all three colors. I have negatives from the same period
which now are essentially monochrome, though, stored under identical
conditions in the dark. The color rendition is certainly not
completely accurate, but then it never was.
KM> limitations of the emulsion of the time, so how do you know it has not
KM> degraded? The Ektachrome emulsion of that time is known to fade, even
KM> in dark storage, so what makes you so confident that your slides
KM> haven't? What special precautions have you taken, because unless you
KM> stored them under archive conditions by accident (since the ideal
KM> conditions were not even identified at the time your storage started)
KM> then they certainly will have faded - even if you *think* they look
KM> OK.
I mainly take pictures to look at them, so if they *look* good, they
*are* good. As I said before, good enough for me :-)
KM> Or do they just look like you recall they should? It is surprising
KM> how many people believe that colours are so much more brilliant these
KM> days than they were in the 50s and 60s - because that is the diet of
KM> images from that period that they are fed on.
If I place these slides on the light table, side by side with other
slides taken within the last few years, lots of the newer slides have
more brilliant colors. I can also find quite a few examples of the
opposite. As you said yourself in a previous post, the Ektachrome
emulsion has been improved, so it is difficult to know which
differences can be attributed to aging, and which are just the
consequence of using another emulsion.
KM> --
KM> Kennedy
KM> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
KM> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
KM> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
--
The Sun also rises

Post time: 2010-2-18 13:08:29 |Show all posts
In article <wvbr3brl2pyu.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>

How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
limitations of the emulsion of the time, so how do you know it has not
degraded? The Ektachrome emulsion of that time is known to fade, even
in dark storage, so what makes you so confident that your slides
haven't? What special precautions have you taken, because unless you
stored them under archive conditions by accident (since the ideal
conditions were not even identified at the time your storage started)
then they certainly will have faded - even if you *think* they look OK.
Or do they just look like you recall they should? It is surprising how
many people believe that colours are so much more brilliant these days
than they were in the 50s and 60s - because that is the diet of images
from that period that they are fed on.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 12:07:57 |Show all posts
In article <wvbr7jgy3cbx.fsf@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>
>I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>for me.
>

Of course they are - and all those years developing and improving the
Ektachrome process has all been in vain.
Cut the BS. 40 years ago Ektachrome wasn't anything like as good as it
is today. For one thing, Ektachrome of that era was renowned for its
excessively blue shadows which, thankfully, Kodak fixed around the
mid-80s . So even if 40 year old Ektachrome slides did survive unfaded,
which *is* possible if they were stored at low temperature in a dry
environment, they certainly would not be \indistinguishable from slides
taken yesterday\ - simply because the emulsion was nowhere near as good
as it is today. If it was, Kodak would never have gone through however
many iterations of the E-x process in that time that they have.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Post time: 2010-2-18 11:25:32 |Show all posts

I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me.

>>>>> \KM\ == Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

KM> In article <1118328522.341539.271120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
KM> Kapecki@gmail.com writes

>> Some of the notes in this thread reflect a basic misunderstanding of
>> image stability, reinforced, alas, by other sources who should know
>> better.
>>
>> Both contemporary Kodachrome and Ektachrome are very stable products,
>> but both emphasize dark stability over light stability.

KM> \Very stable\ is a subjective term - objective measurements show that
KM> both current Kodachrome and Ektachrome have significant deficiencies
KM> compared to competitive products. Hence your use of such a subjective
KM> term is highly questionable. The question may be \is Kodachrome or
KM> Ektachrome good enough?\ and, contrary to your claim, the independent
KM> assessment indicates that the answer is a resounding \No!\.
KM> Current Ektachrome has nothing like the dark stability of Kodachrome,
KM> which has \the worst of all current slide films\ for light stability
KM> and which is *very* significant under normal projection. Current
KM> Ektachrome is indeed much improved over earlier Ektachrome in terms of
KM> dark stability, but it is still grossly inferior to Fuji equivalent
KM> films.
--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.
You have to log in before you can reply Login | register

Advertise on OASQ.COM| Contact us| Archive| OASQ

2014-7-30 17:25 GMT-8

Powered by Discuz! 7.2

Release 20121101, © 2001-2014 OASQ.

To Top