I've never seen a magenta cast on Kodachrome. Snow, rivers, bush, never a
megenta cast. This is why I like it. That's why I didn't take Ektachrome to
Antarctica (which does have a magenta cast). And the slide mounts are
plastic here. And the processing is good. It seems that the US has a lot
more problems than we do with Kodachrome.
Foxy
----- Original Message -----
2. re:Kodachrome. Sure, it's a unique film and we will be poorer without it,
but let's be realistic. It has some faults. The first is lousy processing. I
don't know a single professional photographer that continues to use
Kodachrome exclusively, due to poor processing by Kodak. Crummy cardboard
mounts aside, could they possibly get more dust, water spots, and scratches
on it?
What about color? I know I'm not the only one that is sick of the magenta
cast that the 64 and 200 versions give.
It must be different in OZ. The magenta cast in Kodachrome is why I
went to Agfa years ago. But I was doing lots of desert photography
then; and magenta dirt with Kodachrome blue skies got old fast. The
Agfa did dirt really well. :-) It was also difficult to get much
resolution of detail in a red subject like a flower. It tended to go
to a red blob in a nicely resolved surrounding. That combined with
problematic processing and loss of film by the processor several
times, I never went back to Kodachrome.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|