I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.
I'm obviously not sufficiently digital to understand what you're talking about. I judge colour cast on the light table or projector. Anyway, I would expect a colour profile to apply to the device doing the scanning, not the film; the slide is the 'definitive reality', the only point of a colour profile is to correct for how the scanner deviates from the slide.
I think that this is a very very important point.
If someone bases his results on scans of slides or negatives, then the original may be fine while the scan is poor.
I've got many many scans of Kodak and Fuji slides and negatives. I find some are good and some are poor while the originals may all be fine. A digital tweak in scanning parameters usually brings the scan up to par.
PE
It is correct that many scanners cannot 'duplicate' otherwise good transparencies and negatives due to one limitation or another. We have seen how even recently Kodak improved the scannability of their films and advertized the fact.
This depends on a number of factors such as the support itself which can contain materials deleterious to scanning. One example is the gray carbon that Kodak uses in some supports as an antistat. It could cause problem. Other Kodak films have 'retouching' matte on the back which could cause a problem. IDK, but I can use up all of my fingers listing impediments to a good scan from a good original from either Kodak or Fuji.
I would say personally from analysis and talking to quite a few pros, that the best that I know use Kodak negative films and Fuji reversal films. Both companies are actively engaged in improving their deficient areas.
As for complaints or problems. How come no one ever 'rants' that Fuji is not posting here or advertizing here?? How come no one ever really speaks to the BIG difference in the quality of the Kodak and Fuji databases on their respective web sites. We have seen lately though that Fuji's database lacks certain information whereas Kodak's does not and includes much more than anyone elses.
Therefore, I would say (in spite of my EK bias) that Ilford wins B&W, Kodak wins negative color, Fuji wins reversal color, Kodak wins web site quality.
Kodak and Fuji lose representation on APUG and PN. Kodak and Fuji win advertizing on PN.
You see, from my POV, there is no clear winner and it is certainly divisive to keep this up! Everyone should use what works for them!
PE
Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.
PE
Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.
I would hope that people who are partisan about one or another slide film should consider posting illustrative images, rather than reissuing the usual arguments in threads like this.
Well, I agree that Kodak has overall said some odd thngs. They are trying very hard (too much IMHO) to push into digital and become known.
It's my impression that Kodak is currently searching for something, anything, that will give them the numbers they want. You know, management by whim, chaotic re-orgs, stuff like that ...
Because of their business practices and attitude towards those of us who used to support them by buying products... I wouldn't buy Kodak ever again.
They used to be a good company and provided actual support and products we could use. Now they discontinue Azo when they were the only supplier worldwide of a contact printing paper... that NEVER lost money in sales for them. Always made a profit, just not a high enough profit recently for the stockholders. Piss on the B&W printer is the attitude at Kodak. Piss on them all, not just the Azo users.
So... piss on Kodak.
...
And I also think that we here at APUG have to get smart. We need to embrace Kodak, just as much as we already do with Ilford and should also do with Fuji. Simply put, we NEED them - but they also NEED us.
It's long past time that we got over the "digital abandonment disappointment" and started a positive dialouge with Kodak and Fuji.
Mr. Perez' policies have paid off and have made conventional analog products more profitable. The plant is now running at or near capacity after the reductions in force and in shutting down obsolete equipment.
So, they are able to bring new products to the marketplace in analog photography.
So, they are able to bring new products to the marketplace in analog photography. PE
It does have unique colours, that I quite like. Skies on K64 are kind of weak (25 was much better), but it excels at red, and the rem-jet backing is a Good Thing.Kodachrome is one of the hardest films of all to scan due to its peculiar unit neutral. The cyan dye is very odd in curve shape and this gives the unique colors, but makes a neutral and a good color match hard.
One of the reasons why I said I'm coming to love Portra as color neg film is its scannability.
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?