[Henry Tenby]

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: RE: FILM - What would YOU do?

Martin,

I think the only reason that collectors are reluctant to trade large digital
format scans, is because of that old 'duplicate syndrome' in that there is
still that stigma that scans are a 'copy' from the original slide, albeit
the slide scanners are now so good you can't tell if it's an 'original'
digital image from a digital camera or a scan from an original slide? Once
slide film finally bites the dust, THEN I think you'll find scans from old
slides will find their place and CDs produced covering certain rare subjects
will appear!

After all, if someone asked me if I would be interested in a
CD of RCAF aircraft taken during the 1950s and '60s, I would not turn it
down, or perhaps USAFE aircraft in Europe 1950-65? These are subjects that
are very rare in slide form, so there will be a demand I'm sure.
Whilst I don't advocate 'manipulation' of the original digital image, I
would certainly prefer to have that than, say, an original slide on Perutz
film that was slowly turning red! I have 'turned back' several scans of such
slides to original and natural colours and thus preserving history for
longer! Like it or not, Digital WILL replace 'wet film' sooner than you
think!

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: FILM - What would YOU do?

Adrian

While I agree with you, I would make the observation that collectors still
seem unwilling to buy or trade large format digital scans.

Maybe this is short term as once Kodachrome has gone, perhaps people will
accept digi scans as they do slides today.

Problem I see with the digi is the age old question of what is "original"?
Is the scan you get (or in the future buy) from someone been manipulated? If
it has does that matter? In addition and others may be able to comment here, it seems that the vast majority of digital images produced from the current crop of DSLR's are not 100% sharp straight out of the sensor. So some work in PS or similar is required to obtain optimum results. For myself, I accept digi scans but only if it's a copy of the original file.

Dare I say it.....perhaps this question of film v digital is connected with
the generation of people interested in collecting aircraft photos??? After
all, we're moving into a scenario where new shooters have and never will use
film. For me, nothing will beat pre-digital era Kodak slides period
1960-2000, but now there is very little value to taking slides. As I have
said before, I only take them to cover some of the vast $$$ spent on buying
old slides and to exchange with those people who have slides I want and who
are only interested in a slide for slide deal.

Martin


"Adrian wrote:

> Richard,
> It seems clear me that until the final word comes from Mr.K to cease
> Kodachrome production, they are trying to wean the last K64 shooters off
it,
> so they will go without a fight! With poor service and quality, it is
clear
> that this ploy is working, so as you ceremoniously lift that final roll
out
> of the freezer, you will be relieved that you have no longer got to endure
> that shoddy processing any more and you can look forward to a bright
> self-quality-controlled digital future!!! After 40 years shooting
> Kodachrome(exactly) I decided to give up on the anniversary of that first
> slide shoot and, as I have said before, apart from that nostalgic feeling
of
> actually hold a 2”X2” square of card surrounding a piece of film, I can’t
> see any benefit of slides over digital. I assure you, it’s a physiological
> thing that will be overcome when the last roll of K64 is dead and buried!
>

> Cheers>
> Adrian

> _____
>
> From: Richard V
> Subject: Fw: FILM - What would YOU do?
>
> Martin, Henry et al
>
>
> What an evocative subject you have raised here. Watch out, you are really
> likely to ignite some sharp reaction from me. I am really hacked off by
the
> standard of processing by Dwayne's and no longer look forward to having my
> slides returned, I fear it.

> Rather than ramble on about how things have changed, I'll let anyone who's
> interested read the attached correspondence - says it all really.
>
> The Hollywood connection is one I didn't know about. The Fuji stigma will
> never go away, daft though it is in many ways. Also, the comments about
film
> storage caught my eye as I was well aware that colour/hue will change but
> not necessarily grain. The KR64 does sometimes seem rough in that respect
> now. I still have a fair bit of KM25 in the freezer and prefer (as I
always
> did) to use this whenever possible. It is sooooo much better than
> contrasty-bluesy-greeny 64, even if getting a bit pink in its old age.

> Digital? Vastly superior on nearly every count, but I still can't make the
> total transition - it remains secondary when the opportunity arises for
me.

> Cheers all, and back to scanning oldies from when everything was ok....
> Richard
>
>
>
> (Any comment from the DAPPA guys welcome!)

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: HYPERLINK
>
> Subject: FW: FILM - What would YOU do?

>
> Richard
>

>
> _____
>
> From: HYPERLINK

> Subject: Re: FILM - What would YOU do?
>
>
>
> Henry let me also add that in the US there are probably no more than 5
> active slide shooters currently- that's it, with me being one of them.
> While that is sad, it is also good for those photographers as on auction
and
> in conventions my slides sell extremely well over and over and over. So
for
> me it's been a boon but at the same time there is no question that the
slide
> hobby is one that has retained only the most hardcore collectors in the
> world.

>
> Let me also add- that if you refrigerate your K64 for several months and
use
> the film in bright sunny conditions, the grain effect is mitigated. My
> shots from JFK ramp 2 weeks ago- the real sunny ones are not too bad but
the
> ones where it was somewhat hazy were significatly more grainy.

> JP
>
> Henry wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,

>
> I only shoot kodachrome on holidays and air-to-airs etc as the local scene
> is dead as a doorknob and slides would be untradable. So I no longer shoot
> K64 or any other slide film on a regular basis.
>
>
>
> That said, I have noticed the quality of K64 decline significantly over
the
> past 7 years or so. The last time I shot K64 was 8 rolls on the Honeywell
> B720 visit in February. I staggered the slides into Dwayne's two rolls at
a
> time, and was lucky in that none were damaged. But the grain is indeed
very
> much like Agfa of the 60s. Nothing like kodachrome we know and love.

>
> I get several emails a year from friends about their slides being
butchered
> by Dwayne's with scratches and chemical stains. The most recent was from
> Richard Vandervord who lost many of his recent Russia slides to deep
> scratching. Very frustrating indeed. So it is a real gamble sending
> kodachrome in for processing.. and I don't like having a heart attack due
to
> stress waiting for slides to come back from Dwayne's.
>

> But... local processing of Fuji in Canada is also a pure crap shoot. The
> only place to get Fuji processed is the Fuji lab in the UK, and that is
not
> available to me residing here in the backwaters of Canada.
>
>
>
> Conclusion: Use both K64 and Fuji and hope for the best. But stagger films
> into kodak otherwise you risk entire loss of a trip's shots.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Henry