Reading mode: Light Dark

Here is what you give up for digital.......

Go to last post
Mark Smith said:
These weren't created like that though. The fact these are on Kodachrome means pretty much these are in camera.
Click to expand...
There was Kodachrome Commercial and Kodak Color Print Material in the 50's for duplication purposes. Why would Hollywood shoot publicity photos (which are intended to be duplicated) on a material that could not be easily copied?
Mark Smith145430 said:
In order to do the above the copy slide would have to be lower contrast and obviously you'd tell from the material of that copy that it wasn't Kodachrome because it would be on duplication material you would be holding in your hands.
Click to expand...
Huh? If the final copy was shot on Kodachrome how would you know what the previous layers were made from? Or if the original was Kodachrome, might dupes & sandwiches made on other materials have still have Kodachrome edge markings? (For example, 120 was usually duped to 70mm just for this reason.)
Mark Smith145430 said:
These are all Hollywood studio shots most of the look was down to the type of lighting used,
Click to expand...
I agree - there are only a few that look like additional work was done.
Mark Smith145430 said:
It's interesting to measure the disbelief that these could be real or straight from the camera which tells a story in itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, the story of the long history of pre-digital image manipulation. Perhaps a little more research what could be and was done?
 
TRIODEROB said:
I agree.

But when done correctly - magic and NOT surpassed - at all - by digital
Click to expand...
True!

Bryan is right also. Film is only for the eagles.

"The Digital Age" or "How to Easy Make of Everyone a Jack of all Trades".
 
yaErik Magnuson said:
Mark Smith said:
These weren't created like that though. The fact these are on Kodachrome means pretty much these are in camera.
Click to expand...
There was Kodachrome Commercial and Kodak Color Print Material in the 50's for duplication purposes.
Click to expand...
The only KK dupe material available was 5262 and that was only in 16mm and 35mm the colour print of the time was a wholly different process.

These Hollywood ones were normally printed carbro types which is wonderful if you've seen one with your own eyes
Member said:
Why would Hollywood shoot publicity photos (which are intended to be duplicated) on a material that could not be easily copied?
Click to expand...
It was intended for a different type of reproduction one involving separations.
Member said:
Member said:
In order to do the above the copy slide would have to be lower contrast and obviously you'd tell from the material of that copy that it wasn't Kodachrome because it would be on duplication material you would be holding in your hands.
Click to expand...
Huh? If the final copy was shot on Kodachrome how would you know what the previous layers were made from?
Click to expand...
Easy; each generation will add contrast, their was as far as I know no large format version of 5262.
Member said:
Or if the original was Kodachrome, might dupes & sandwiches made on other materials have still have Kodachrome edge markings? (For example, 120 was usually duped to 70mm just for this reason.)
Click to expand...
No Kodachrome even if the dupes have markings is easily identified just flip it over and look at the emulsion relief–something unique to Kodachrome (in colour) 120 and 70mm are a different generation and not applicable to the 1930's
Member said:
Member said:
These are all Hollywood studio shots most of the look was down to the type of lighting used,
Click to expand...
I agree - there are only a few that look like additional work was done.
Member said:
It's interesting to measure the disbelief that these could be real or straight from the camera which tells a story in itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, the story of the long history of pre-digital image manipulation. Perhaps a little more research what could be and was done?
Click to expand...
I was told by a Kodak tech how these were done back in the 1980's he told me (as I held a Hurrell original) the method.

If you notice the images have very strong primary colours yellow/blue red etc. Kodachrome is non-substantive that is the colours are added during processing. So if you have a woman in a blue dress with a yellow flower in her hair and red lipstick you can fog the film with red light prior to cyan development (dye and phenol containing) to obtain more red without affecting the other colours, same with the blue light and yellow developer–think dye transfer or similar.

The developers really were coloured..

Kodachrome cyan developer was after the red light fog...
Kodachrome cyan developer was after the red light fog...

That's how they did it!
 
Last edited:
Mark Smith said:
These Hollywood ones were normally printed carbro types which is wonderful if you've seen one with your own eyes
Click to expand...
If printed, then it's not direct from camera either.
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
Why would Hollywood shoot publicity photos (which are intended to be duplicated) on a material that could not be easily copied?
Click to expand...
It was intended for a different type of reproduction one involving separations.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they did not send the single precious original to everyone that needed to do repro. They sent copies.

Kodachrome souvenir slides (like the ones here http://www.codex99.com/photography/77.html) were sold in the thousands in tourist destinations. Are you saying those were all camera originals?
Mark Smith145430 said:
Easy; each generation will add contrast, their was as far as I know no large format version of 5262.
Click to expand...
You only need one generation to make a dupe. If you were shooting for duplication, you accounted for the contrast increase with the original lighting and exposure. There were also lacquers and dyes designed to be added via a brush directly to the film surface. It's not like these photos had small budgets or were done in an industry where manipulating film was an exotic technique.
Mark Smith145430 said:
No Kodachrome even if the dupes have markings is easily identified just flip it over and look at the emulsion relief–something unique to Kodachrome (in colour) 120 and 70mm are a different generation and not applicable to the 1930's
Click to expand...
Did the book do this level of authentication?
Mark Smith145430 said:
If you notice the images have very strong primary colours yellow/blue red etc. [...] That's how they did it!
Click to expand...
You keep talking about the colors which I'm not talking about. I'm talking about the lack of texture in Rita Hayworth's or Marlene Detrich's skin. They had the very best make up artists but still ... There is also something a bit off in the Fred Astaire image that makes me suspect it could be a composite.
 
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
 
Dan Marchant said:
TRIODEROB said:
you get convenience for sure but you must pay the price.

and that price is a special "look"
Click to expand...
A mate and I were hanging with Salgado last night, as you do, and asked him if he would ever go back to film. His response was most certainly not. He gets the same look from his digital images that he got from film with none of the hassle. Of course he has a team in Paris who do his processing for him.
And yes I'm entirely serious. he was at a Gallery event in Hong Kong last night.
Click to expand...
 
brianj said:
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
Click to expand...
That's just the point Brian digital can look how you wish, but if you don't know what kodachrome looks like how will you create a similar look?

How do you describe red to a blind person?
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Mark Smith said:
These Hollywood ones were normally printed carbro types which is wonderful if you've seen one with your own eyes
Click to expand...
If printed, then it's not direct from camera either.
Click to expand...
Did I say it was? Normally though the prints looked like the originals...
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Why would Hollywood shoot publicity photos (which are intended to be duplicated) on a material that could not be easily copied?
Click to expand...
It was intended for a different type of reproduction one involving separations.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they did not send the single precious original to everyone that needed to do repro. They sent copies.
Click to expand...
You are thinking 1980's these Hollywood originals were printed with separations and those PRINTS sent to clients they never sent the originals!
Member said:
Kodachrome souvenir slides (like the ones here http://www.codex99.com/photography/77.html) were sold in the thousands in tourist destinations. Are you saying those were all camera originals?
Click to expand...
Of course not those were duplicates on Kodachrome dupe film (16 and 35mm) originally developed for cine reel duplication.
Member said:
Member said:
Easy; each generation will add contrast, their was as far as I know no large format version of 5262.
Click to expand...
You only need one generation to make a dupe. If you were shooting for duplication, you accounted for the contrast increase with the original lighting and exposure.
Click to expand...
They didn't do it like that with Kodachrome, they used a panchromatic mask these orignals were very high contrast and had bright colours.
Member said:
There were also lacquers and dyes designed to be added via a brush directly to the film surface. It's not like these photos had small budgets or were done in an industry where manipulating film was an exotic technique.
Click to expand...
Er no, this was hard to do with KK as it has no retouching base and I can tell you (I've seen the originals) these were un retouched.
Member said:
Member said:
No Kodachrome even if the dupes have markings is easily identified just flip it over and look at the emulsion relief–something unique to Kodachrome (in colour) 120 and 70mm are a different generation and not applicable to the 1930's
Click to expand...
Did the book do this level of authentication?
Click to expand...
English? you're not making sense (usual for you) I HAVE seen some of the ACTUAL transparencies!

How hard is that for you to get?
Member said:
Member said:
If you notice the images have very strong primary colours yellow/blue red etc. [...] That's how they did it!
Click to expand...
You keep talking about the colors which I'm not talking about.
Click to expand...
That's what the subject is, the colours of Kodachrome.
Member said:
I'm talking about the lack of texture in Rita Hayworth's or Marlene Detrich's skin.
Click to expand...
The texture is there-you're blinded by your lack of integrity.
Member said:
They had the very best make up artists but still ... There is also something a bit off in the Fred Astaire image that makes me suspect it could be a composite.
Click to expand...
The Fred Astaire shot is obviously not a composite, you can see how it was done if you have ever worked in a studio-the lighting is simple.
 
Mark Smith said:
brianj said:
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
Click to expand...
That's just the point Brian digital can look how you wish, but if you don't know what kodachrome looks like how will you create a similar look?

How do you describe red to a blind person?
Click to expand...

You can't, so the only ones who want to create it are those that have experience with it from the past, I do not have that. To me such color was most likely the best they could do at the time but probably nothing like reality, so why would you want to recreate it except for nostalgic reasons. Its the same with BW, people use it to somehow recreate the past look, but the past was colored, its only the imperfect photos that were BW, so when you recreate it now it is only for nostalgic reasons to make yourself feel good.

If you really want it, the other way is to use a designed filter as others have suggested. The point I was originally makeing is still that with digital you can make whatever you like.

Brian
 
brianj said:
Mark Smith said:
brianj said:
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
Click to expand...
That's just the point Brian digital can look how you wish, but if you don't know what kodachrome looks like how will you create a similar look?

How do you describe red to a blind person?
Click to expand...
You can't, so the only ones who want to create it are those that have experience with it from the past, I do not have that. To me such color was most likely the best they could do at the time but probably nothing like reality, so why would you want to recreate it except for nostalgic reasons.
Click to expand...
The colours were great nothing is like reality not even the best digital money can buy, film even years ago was capable of good natural colour.
brianj said:
Its the same with BW, people use it to somehow recreate the past look, but the past was colored, its only the imperfect photos that were BW, so when you recreate it now it is only for nostalgic reasons to make yourself feel good.
Click to expand...
I disagree I use mono for a number of reasons, none of them nostalgia.
brianj said:
If you really want it, the other way is to use a designed filter as others have suggested. The point I was originally makeing is still that with digital you can make whatever you like.

Brian
Click to expand...
Those filters do a poor job I have over many years shot film side by side with digital and can honestly say they can only give a flavour like vegie burger compared to meat, similar but not the same.

So you might think digital can 'do anything' and I'm sure given enough time and skill that might be true, outside of that tiny percent it's easier to shoot something like say Velvia than spend hours behind a screen.
 
Mark Smith said:
You are thinking 1980's these Hollywood originals were printed with separations and those PRINTS sent to clients they never sent the originals!
Click to expand...
Thinking more 60's - 70's where publications preferred copy transparencies to prints for color.
Mark Smith145430 said:
Er no, this was hard to do with KK as it has no retouching base
Click to expand...
That's what the lacquers were for. Also to harden against additional handling.
Mark Smith145430 said:
I HAVE seen some of the ACTUAL transparencies! How hard is that for you to get?
Click to expand...
Have the originals for the three I mention? If you've seen those originals close enough to be sure they are camera output, then say so.
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
If you notice the images have very strong primary colours yellow/blue red etc. [...] That's how they did it!
Click to expand...
You keep talking about the colors which I'm not talking about.
Click to expand...
That's what the subject is, the colours of Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
Whose subject sir? Are you paying attention to where you are replying? I.e. "I think I see what you're saying sir. Marlene Dietrich's portrait (photo 9/15) struck me as looking "more digital" than a digital photo,"
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
I'm talking about the lack of texture in Rita Hayworth's or Marlene Detrich's skin.
Click to expand...
The texture is there-you're blinded by your lack of integrity.
Click to expand...
Ah, now resorting to ad hominem - the last resort of the desperate. I could be wrong in that it could be very, very, very good makeup. Or those images could be not from the Kodachrome originals. But Kodachrome could be and was retouched.
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
They had the very best make up artists but still ... There is also something a bit off in the Fred Astaire image that makes me suspect it could be a composite.
Click to expand...
The Fred Astaire shot is obviously not a composite, you can see how it was done if you have ever worked in a studio-the lighting is simple.
Click to expand...
The lighting is not a argument either way as it would be identical if it were from one or multiple shots. My main suspicion is that some of the eyes of the chorus are looking at the wrong spot as if Fred were not there. But it's also that they could simply have been bored after multiple takes (some are motion blurred as if they could not hold the pose.)
 
What you give up for digital is the need for an education - apparently beyond an hour long youtube video- in order to generate quite acceptable- from an advertising perspective- results with a Nikon D800. So much for the complexity of 36 MP models. I've seen their results. These two had never used a D camera before other than a phone. Bought it on Thursday , made the client happy on Saturday with test images.





By the way, I just looked while typing this at the photo displayed under FINISHED CHALLENGES , should full frontal with bush really be on the general public part of the web site?

Cheers.



d824b4a2c0254eac8b6f31871895184d.jpg.png
 
brianj said:
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
Click to expand...
No..that wasn't the point. The point you tried to make with this image is that you thought you created at Kodachrome like shot...while admitting you didn't actually know at all. Do you get the point now.
 
DenWil said:
What you give up for digital is the need for an education - apparently beyond an hour long youtube video- in order to generate quite acceptable- from an advertising perspective- results with a Nikon D800. So much for the complexity of 36 MP models. I've seen their results. These two had never used a D camera before other than a phone. Bought it on Thursday , made the client happy on Saturday with test images.

By the way, I just looked while typing this at the photo displayed under FINISHED CHALLENGES , should full frontal with bush really be on the general public part of the web site?

Cheers.
Click to expand...
The more the merrier.
DenWil said:
d824b4a2c0254eac8b6f31871895184d.jpg.png
Click to expand...
 
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
The Davinator said:
brianj said:
whvick said:
I love my digital camera, but grew up with Kodachrome. I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......

I keep waiting for a Kodachrome plug in.....is there one?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the good thing about digital, you can have whatever you want.

The Overlander

The Overlander

Brian
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are saying this looks liek Kodachrome...because it looks nothing like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...
I don't know what kodachrome looks like, maybe its like the gaudy positive film filter that you can choose in camera, way too much color. No, the point was that digital has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be.

Brian
Click to expand...
No..that wasn't the point. The point you tried to make with this image is that you thought you created at Kodachrome like shot...while admitting you didn't actually know at all. Do you get the point now.
Click to expand...
No.. that wasn't the point. The poster I was responding to said: 'I miss those "nice, bright colors", that make everyday a sunny day.......' so I was showing an image which demonstrated exactly that and it was available OOC from digital. Do you get the point now?

Brian
 
DenWil said:
What you give up for digital is the need for an education - apparently beyond an hour long youtube video- in order to generate quite acceptable- from an advertising perspective- results with a Nikon D800. So much for the complexity of 36 MP models. I've seen their results. These two had never used a D camera before other than a phone. Bought it on Thursday , made the client happy on Saturday with test images.

By the way, I just looked while typing this at the photo displayed under FINISHED CHALLENGES , should full frontal with bush really be on the general public part of the web site?

Cheers.

d824b4a2c0254eac8b6f31871895184d.jpg.png
Click to expand...

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Brian
 
DenWil said:
By the way, I just looked while typing this at the photo displayed under FINISHED CHALLENGES , should full frontal with bush really be on the general public part of the web site?
Click to expand...
My personal view? Yes, by all means yes. This is who we are, this is how we got here. If you can't handle the sight of natural human beings, get back under the rock.

In the context of currently acceptable images, naked people are just plain unacceptable. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top