[WPRESTO]

Another grasshopper, this one is a SCAN from the Film Era so I cannot be certain which lens was used. It is a studio image, so it was probably the 90mm f2.5 Tokina. BTW, as always, IQ is better in the original chrome than in this digital scan.

Attached Images

 

[rgknief60]

BTW, as always, IQ is better in the original chrome than in this digital scan.

Your sentence sent me down a brief Wiki rabbit hole. It seems that accurate scanning of chrome transparancies is complicated, as was the original processing of the film. Wiki mentioned a loss of sharpness common with some scanning techniques.

The yellow channel is most subject to fading. The Wiki states, "It has been calculated that the yellow dye, the least stable, would suffer a 20% loss of dye in 185 years.[36] This is because developed Kodachrome does not retain unused color couplers. Nevertheless, Kodachrome's color stability under bright light, for example during projection, is inferior to substantive slide films. Kodachrome's fade time under projection is about one hour, compared to Fujichrome's two and a half hours.[37]"

I have never seen a chrome in person. Fortunately chromes seem to age much better than other film stock under archival conditions. Thanks for sharing your chromes, and giving a us a taste of what you get to view on a regular basis, Walter!

[WPRESTO]

Your sentence sent me down a brief Wiki rabbit hole. It seems that accurate scanning of chrome transparancies is complicated, as was the original processing of the film. Wiki mentioned a loss of sharpness common with some scanning techniques.

The yellow channel is most subject to fading. The Wiki states, "It has been calculated that the yellow dye, the least stable, would suffer a 20% loss of dye in 185 years.[36] This is because developed Kodachrome does not retain unused color couplers. Nevertheless, Kodachrome's color stability under bright light, for example during projection, is inferior to substantive slide films. Kodachrome's fade time under projection is about one hour, compared to Fujichrome's two and a half hours.[37]"

I have never seen a chrome in person. Fortunately chromes seem to age much better than other film stock under archival conditions. Thanks for sharing your chromes, and giving a us a taste of what you get to view on a regular basis, Walter!

My impression of many scans is they commonly have a bluish cast, almost like distant haze, which might be a consequence of the deterioration of yellow (= they have become cool rather than warm). Also, the scans tend to have harsher contrast and lose "crispness" (=acutance). I've had about 3500 chromes scanned, and among those I've had time to work on with an image processing program, not one has been 100% satisfactory and there are many that I reject out of hand as not worth attempting to prepare for posting. I have no count of how many chromes I have, but probably 150,000 or so. The majority will never be shared.

[Canada_Rockies]

My impression of many scans is they commonly have a bluish cast, almost like distant haze, which might be a consequence of the deterioration of yellow (= they have become cool rather than warm). Also, the scans tend to have harsher contrast and lose "crispness" (=acutance). I've had about 3500 chromes scanned, and among those I've had time to work on with an image processing program, not one has been 100% satisfactory and there are many that I reject out of hand as not worth attempting to prepare for posting. I have no count of how many chromes I have, but probably 150,000 or so. The majority will never be shared.

I have a cubic metre cupboard full of film and slides. The earliest winner for me I will try and find. It's a Kodachrome 10 shot taken with an Asahi Pentax and Takumar 55/2.2 of a woman artist with her face lit up by the reflection from her drawing or painting. I see it in my mind, and it's in there somewhere. I was 20 or 21, and she was gorgeous!

[WPRESTO]

I have a cubic metre cupboard full of film and slides. The earliest winner for me I will try and find. It's a Kodachrome 10 shot taken with an Asahi Pentax and Takumar 55/2.2 of a woman artist with her face lit up by the reflection from her drawing or painting. I see it in my mind, and it's in there somewhere. I was 20 or 21, and she was gorgeous!

My start in 35mm was also an Asahi Pentax S with f2.2 preset Takumar, using original Kodachrome ASA 10*. I may have a few chromes from that very first roll. I remember one of them being a picture of a cock's comb flower taken in a friend's garden. I had never seen or heard of the plant before that day and was impressed both by it and the simple image I took of it. I was about 14 or 15. I also used to have many many B&W images taken in high school, candids of friends and classmates, but I think I discarded all of those during a a PMS house cleaning fury as I had not looked at any of them for 40 years or more.

*Before 35mm I had used a Brownie, then briefly an old Kodak folder that used 616 film, then briefly a Zeiss Super Ikonta C. Both folders were hand-me-downs from father who had long since given up photography. The Zeiss was really a fine thing but not suitable for the kind of photography that interested me (=macro/nature).

[edom31]

Panagor PMC 90/2.8 Macro

[que es tu]

Pentax KP with DFA 100mm f2.8 macro

[WPRESTO]

Damsel fly, a popular subject for macros.Sigma 150mm macro via 0.7X adapter on Pany G9

[rgknief60]

Pentax KP with DFA 100mm f2.8 macro

I like how you were able to leverage the droplets to increase the magnification of the veins in the leaf.

Panagor PMC 90/2.8 Macro

Great B&W subject!

Damsel fly, a popular subject for macros.

Nice capture. Like the greens and the dusting of the purple/bule. Nice job of exposure on what appears to be a very bright day that could easily blow out parts of the image.

[WPRESTO]

I like how you were able to leverage the droplets to increase the magnification of the veins in the leaf..

FYI: I have gotten that effect now and then. It just happens when the light is right. Sometimes a drop hanging from a blade of grass or a twig acts as a simple lens and shows the far background in minature as well as upside down and reversed right-left. See post #2172 on the last page of this thread:

Wetness...If the Subject is Water - Page 145 - PentaxForums.com

[que es tu]

FYI: I have gotten that effect now and then. It just happens when the light is right. Sometimes a drop hanging from a blade of grass or a twig acts as a simple lens and shows the far background in minature as well as upside down and reversed right-left. See post #2172 on the last page of this thread:

Wetness...If the Subject is Water - Page 145 - PentaxForums.com

Yes, I just found the drops that way and ran to get the camera! Just a happy accident!

[edom31]

Great B&W subject!

Thank you!

[WPRESTO]

Another SCAN of a grasshopper image from the Film Era. This was taken in the field so the lens was probably the 200mm f4 SMCA ED macro.

[Scorpio71GR]

A butterfly from early this year. Taken back in April towards the end of the annual butterfly exhibit at the local botanical gardens. I finally built a new desktop pc since my twelve year old one was on longer up to the task of photo editing.

K-1 and Sigma 180 Macro and AF540FGZii flash with a diffuser.


Butterflies Meijer Gardens-1 2022 by Michael, on Flickr

[WPRESTO]

90mm F2.5 Tokina