Good information in the data sheet, thanks. I presume the film is discontinued. Too pricey for me ($599.99 or offer), but here is some expired (2004) rolls (1000'): https://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-70mm...713004?hash=item1ef0aa52ac:g:tIQAAOSw54xUWi0V
The specific Kodachrome spectral dye density and Ektachrome spectral sensitivity and resulting dye densities creates the need for filters when making dupes. The analysis is called a print-through. This is a spectral analysis. The characteristics are cascaded to determine the best filter pack. Modifyingthe filter pack doesn't give the best possible dupe from Kodachrome. So Kodak had a special Ektachrome dupe film, Type K that had spectral sensitivity and image dyes to optimize duplication of Kodachrome (K-14) Film on to a E-6 dupe film.
Bob Shanebrook www.makingKODAKfilm.com
Everything Ektachrome seems to be elusive, this thread has an ad from Amazon today with a "Vintage EKTACHROME Film Logo T-shirt" of course i click on it, and find it does not ship to Canada.
The one who would do it.
ultrafineonline.com
Everything Ektachrome seems to be elusive, this thread has an ad from Amazon today with a "Vintage EKTACHROME Film Logo T-shirt" of course i click on it, and find it does not ship to Canada.
I've shot some, and have a few that meet some of these criteria - just no flesh tones on the rolls that I've scanned so far.Does anyone have any examples with subtle gradation, soft light, some flesh tones and lots of midtones?
That is the sort of scene I love to photograph using transparency film.
Me too. Some examples - most shot under at least some open sky lighting - (hope the resizing and downloader don't ruin these:Im really happy with the results im seeing with this new Ektachrome,
I've shot some, and have a few that meet some of these criteria - just no flesh tones on the rolls that I've scanned so far.
Me too. Some examples - most shot under at least some open sky lighting - (hope the resizing and downloader don't ruin these:
View attachment 218700 View attachment 218701 View attachment 218702 View attachment 218703 View attachment 218704 View attachment 218705
I've shot some, and have a few that meet some of these criteria - just no flesh tones on the rolls that I've scanned so far.
I'm not going to let you be my mycologist.
So do I but those appear to be a different type than oyster.
http://www.greenmanconservation.co.uk/Tree_Decay_Fungi.htm
PE
The ground was cold and wet, and I didn't want to kneel or lie on it.Its unusual to see that angle, as the are usually photographed from the side or below
The ground was cold and wet, and I didn't want to kneel or lie on it.
I know, a wuss.
"Leave only footprints, take only photographs" is my mottoShame shame. The least you could do for us mycophiles and mycophagists is pick one and photograph the underside.
"Leave only footprints, take only photographs" is my motto
I was fishing over the weekend and when I was hiking back to the car at the end of one day, the little sandy areas between the rocks looked so cool that I didn't step in them. I thought of that saying and then kind of laughed because I wasn't even willing to leave footprints."Leave only footprints, take only photographs" is my motto
Thankyou, but I get enough strange looks walking amongst the trees with a Mamiya C330 and a tripod and a camera bag and a meter ....You could put mirrors on your shoes then.
Thank you MattBack in late 2018 the information I had was that they were hoping for some initial availability about now, but given their experience with the 120 backing paper problems they weren't going to hurry anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?