AlanG

Lives in United States Silver Spring, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.goldsteinphoto.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 864, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

T3: "You press the button, we do the rest"

For those who don't know photography history, that was Eastman Kodak's slogan and that's how they got started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Press_the_Button,_We_Do_the_Rest

It seems like this is the same philosophy that Relonch is using. You press the button, and they'll take care of the rest. That might rankle "serious" photographers who think this was "lazy" and an affront to photography, just like it did back in 1888 when George Eastman first introduced the "You press the button, we do the rest" business model. But I do think it's a nice option to have for those who just want nice, post-processed, edited images from RAW files, but don't want to do anything more than to compose the image and press a button.

It certainly can work if there are enough well off people who want to carry a sign that screams, "I am a dork." Wouldn't these people prefer the image you get from carrying a Leica?

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 02:58 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Not really a bad idea to try, and using discontinued Samsungs is a great bootstrap. However, I think it's funny that they have an ordinary lenscap on it that doesn't even seem to be tethered to the case.

Why not discontinued Lytros?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:49 UTC

I'm starting a service where your cell phone connects directly to me and shows me what you are pointing at. I then direct you (and the subject(s) if there are people) and I fire the trigger for you at the decisive moment... guaranteeing you a "Professional Photo"

$10,000 per year for 50 photos. All from the comfort of my beach villa in Mexico so I can retire. (The Pancho Villa I & II)

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 22:33 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

probert500: Ektachrome is OK and may be the best film for cross processing - good on them. If they brought back kodachrome, that would be headline news. Kodachrome is the only archival color format - that means something.

I thought the topic is clearly about the new film. Archival qualities of old discontinued film is known.

What I think is relevant is discussing the potential market for this film. Presumably Kodak has a market in mind that will buy enough to justify the production levels they will start out with. But if many photographers are considering it for its archival qualities, Kodak is not targeting them at this point by touting that as a feature.

What is really peculiar to me is the idea of Super 8 Ektachrome. Is the idea that filmmakers are supposed to splice the original film and then project it? Or are they supposed to scan it and edit it on a computer? If the latter, why not just shoot negative stock.

If they are going to project the Ektachrome, then it will get scratched and degraded pretty easily. Are they expected to make film copies of the spliced film? If so, how?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Ektachrome is OK and may be the best film for cross processing - good on them. If they brought back kodachrome, that would be headline news. Kodachrome is the only archival color format - that means something.

And nobody has done any archival testing on this new film that does not even exist yet. If this is a factor in photographers' decisions to choose film over digital it only applies to a tiny segment of the market. That's ok because this is a niche product.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

zilver: “This feature, combined with the increasing inebriation, led to me laughing/near-cheering with the announcement that my flight was further delayed.”

I stopped reading at this point. Just a written ad, not a review.

He's an advertising photographer. You expect his photos not to be slick?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 15:59 UTC

Are these things invented just so people on DPReview have something to comment about?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 15:55 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies

How come Kodak never thought of this?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 15:06 UTC as 71st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AlanG: What will be interesting is to find out how large a market there now is for Ektachrome. I can't see the Super 8 market being very big, and it seems that filmmakers' needs are better served by scanning color negs and editing the digital movie.

At one time a huge percentage of commercial photography was shot on E6. Virtually all of that was replaced by digital. I can't think of a single commercial application today that is best served by shooting on E6 vs. digital capture.

So that leaves the niche market of film enthusiasts and some "artists." Do they want to shoot E6 and project slides? Are they planning to directly print from color transparencies... how? Are they planning to scan it? If so why not just shoot C41 film and scan that? Is there something special about using Ektachrome for a certain result that they can't get any other way that justifies the cost and hassle? Archival arguments are B.S. IMHO.

It seems to me that this is a "solution" looking for a problem.

Archival issues are a BS argument... I don't see Kodak making an archival argument in their press releases about Ektachrome. And if this were important in the buying decision of choosing film over digital then slide film usage would never have declined so much in the first place.

And Hollywood does not archive onto Ektachrome and I don't think they ever did.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: I have a lot of 70 year old Kodachrome slides in almost pristine condition - and not stored in particularly good conditions. I Know of no other color film ( and very little similarly old B&W ) that has held up so well.

Of course, my little Panasonic "P&S" digital beats all of that: I won't be buying Ektachrome, sorry.

I am not interested in preserving my images for all time. But if I were I would do that with on-line storage. There is no way that my descendants will want to deal with several file cabinets worth of film nor do I. Having all of those images as high res Jpegs on a few hard drives is manageable and makes them accessible. To give you an idea of volume, every year or so I post an on-line submission to the Copyright office of around 20,000 images. I couldn't manage that with film.

Also your statement that motion pictures are stored on LTO is a red herring, First we are not using LTO but on-line storage and disk drives that can easily migrate the volume we have to new locations if necessary. I have tesn of thousands of images always accessible to me and my clients on Photoshelter.

And when Hollywood digital movies are put on film for archiving, they do not use Ektachrome. Instead they make B/W separation negatives.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Ektachrome is OK and may be the best film for cross processing - good on them. If they brought back kodachrome, that would be headline news. Kodachrome is the only archival color format - that means something.

probert500. Kodachrome excels in dark storage but degrades while projected.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: I have a lot of 70 year old Kodachrome slides in almost pristine condition - and not stored in particularly good conditions. I Know of no other color film ( and very little similarly old B&W ) that has held up so well.

Of course, my little Panasonic "P&S" digital beats all of that: I won't be buying Ektachrome, sorry.

How will we ever get by? FWIW, I did the opposite... I scanned the film and threw it away to save space. No problem.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 01:20 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: What will be interesting is to find out how large a market there now is for Ektachrome. I can't see the Super 8 market being very big, and it seems that filmmakers' needs are better served by scanning color negs and editing the digital movie.

At one time a huge percentage of commercial photography was shot on E6. Virtually all of that was replaced by digital. I can't think of a single commercial application today that is best served by shooting on E6 vs. digital capture.

So that leaves the niche market of film enthusiasts and some "artists." Do they want to shoot E6 and project slides? Are they planning to directly print from color transparencies... how? Are they planning to scan it? If so why not just shoot C41 film and scan that? Is there something special about using Ektachrome for a certain result that they can't get any other way that justifies the cost and hassle? Archival arguments are B.S. IMHO.

It seems to me that this is a "solution" looking for a problem.

Yes slide film is very easy to shoot if you have limited requirements and don't mind being sloppy with a lot of misses. Try using 10 different view camera lenses each with a shutter and see if you can get the exposure within 1/3rd of a stop on all of them... assuming one even knows exactly the "best" exposure for the look one wants for that particular scene.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: What will be interesting is to find out how large a market there now is for Ektachrome. I can't see the Super 8 market being very big, and it seems that filmmakers' needs are better served by scanning color negs and editing the digital movie.

At one time a huge percentage of commercial photography was shot on E6. Virtually all of that was replaced by digital. I can't think of a single commercial application today that is best served by shooting on E6 vs. digital capture.

So that leaves the niche market of film enthusiasts and some "artists." Do they want to shoot E6 and project slides? Are they planning to directly print from color transparencies... how? Are they planning to scan it? If so why not just shoot C41 film and scan that? Is there something special about using Ektachrome for a certain result that they can't get any other way that justifies the cost and hassle? Archival arguments are B.S. IMHO.

It seems to me that this is a "solution" looking for a problem.

First of all you can like what you need to know about how film reacts. I am an expert in that and don't miss needing that skill in order to take a photo. I shot color critical architectural interior 4x5 transparencies under mixed light for decades.

Slide film is rigid in use because you can't change the ISO, contrast, saturation, or color balance on the fly. And there are limited choices of those things anyway even if you can change backs or have several camera bodies.

It is complex because critical usage of transparency film requires extensive understanding of the spectrum of light, using color correction filters, the specifics of reciprocity failure characteristics for each type of film, how to light for the limited dynamic range, and every emulsion varies enough that I had to buy in large quantities and test each emulsion in advance. The only way to backup is to shoot several versions of the same photo on different rolls or sheets... something I did on every commercial photo.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: What will be interesting is to find out how large a market there now is for Ektachrome. I can't see the Super 8 market being very big, and it seems that filmmakers' needs are better served by scanning color negs and editing the digital movie.

At one time a huge percentage of commercial photography was shot on E6. Virtually all of that was replaced by digital. I can't think of a single commercial application today that is best served by shooting on E6 vs. digital capture.

So that leaves the niche market of film enthusiasts and some "artists." Do they want to shoot E6 and project slides? Are they planning to directly print from color transparencies... how? Are they planning to scan it? If so why not just shoot C41 film and scan that? Is there something special about using Ektachrome for a certain result that they can't get any other way that justifies the cost and hassle? Archival arguments are B.S. IMHO.

It seems to me that this is a "solution" looking for a problem.

If you are banking on what Kodak "hopes" will be viable, you should look at the company's track record of numerous mistakes and failures.

The problem with film in general is that it is costly, overly complex and rigid in use, problematic in every way, has limited ISO choices, there is a delay between shooting and viewing, risk of damage and loss at every step, bulky to store, hard to label and annotate, difficult to share, impossible to make exact copies, needs to be scanned to be adjusted and retouched, has color and density shifts in long and short exposures, has a tone curve that can only be adjusted by digital intervention, will need to be scanned into digital form to be reproduced, your final scanned adjusted image will need a digital archive also, and on and on.

Against this I can't think of a single "universal" benefit thus I see trying to get photographers to have any kind of serious long term commitment to use a significant amount of slide film as unlikely.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: What will be interesting is to find out how large a market there now is for Ektachrome. I can't see the Super 8 market being very big, and it seems that filmmakers' needs are better served by scanning color negs and editing the digital movie.

At one time a huge percentage of commercial photography was shot on E6. Virtually all of that was replaced by digital. I can't think of a single commercial application today that is best served by shooting on E6 vs. digital capture.

So that leaves the niche market of film enthusiasts and some "artists." Do they want to shoot E6 and project slides? Are they planning to directly print from color transparencies... how? Are they planning to scan it? If so why not just shoot C41 film and scan that? Is there something special about using Ektachrome for a certain result that they can't get any other way that justifies the cost and hassle? Archival arguments are B.S. IMHO.

It seems to me that this is a "solution" looking for a problem.

Archival arguments are BS because that is not a major factor in the purchase.. Digital with its ability to make unlimited originals and on-line storage makes it far superior. How do you think banks store financial records?

When I shoot tethered I back up to the camera and computer. Before I leave the job, I copy to an external HD. So I have 3 copies almost immediately. Then I load the SELECT files onto my workstation that has a RAID and internal and external BU. Finished files are uploaded to Photoshelter and downloaded by my clients. So there are many copies.

When I shot film, there was one copy. Film was lost by clients. Stock photos had to be shipped all over the place. Two people could not have access to the same pictures at the same time. I always tried to shoot extra film that I held
back from the lab.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 15:43 UTC

A Kickstarter revival of the Argus C3 would be the ultimate pinnacle of this genre.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 05:57 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

msstudio: Funny how the still market is obsessed with mega resolution and our moving image friends with HDR. All based on the same technology, more or less, and yes, I heard about 8k capture...All I want is smooth tones, huge range and quick in camera storage. Big enough for a billboard (which my Canon 5D M II already did).

Yes and no about more resolution. My clients are ad agencies and much of the work ends up on web pages that are viewed on computers and cell phones. The photos are not always full screen. So 42 Mpix files are often not needed and I give them smaller files for easier management.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: "...how Kodak is making the economics of Ektachrome work by creating it in smaller, more sustainable batches."

It is interesting that a 4'x6,000' roll is considered a smaller batch. What size batches were they making before?

Yes that was my understanding also. So what about a 4' x 6000' batch represents a "smaller, more sustainable batch?" Is it that they can shut down the machine and switch over to another emulsion easily rather than run continuously for a number of large rolls?

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

RedFox88: This should be cancelled due to the financial losses they just announced. SMH

Davinator wrote: "If the film market was not making them money...they would not of reintroduced Ektachrome. "

That is your conclusion but is not proof of anything. First of all Ektachrome has not been introduced yet. Second, companies often introduce a product or service at a loss while working over time to establish a market that is profitable.

Amazon.com's investors stuck with Bezos' plan despite continued losses. Tesla shares have been soaring despite continued losses and poor forecasts by some analysts.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 21:03 UTC
Total: 864, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »