hillary_charles

<p>I agree that vintage slides can have their own intrinsic, documentary value. And they can be very entertaining. "Infotainer" Charles Phoenix has made a name for himself built upon slide shows made up entirely of vintage amateur slides. The Trachtenberg Family Slideshow Players perform quirky songs inspired by old slides found at thrift stores and yard sales.</p>

<p>There are some into car culture, and will collect vintage slides of gas stations, drive-ins, etc. You never know what others might find interesting, or just how interesting those slides can become in the right hands.</p>

<p>I don't want to speak for JDM, but there are several print viewers available from Berezin. They even carry a modern Holmes viewer kit which can accomodate eyeglasses! Might be worth checking out.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berezin.com/3d/viewers1.htm">http://www.berezin.com/3d/viewers1.htm</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never did understand or get the need of stereo cameras same with 3D. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jack, have you ever seen stereo slides with a good quality viewer? You might not need them yourself, but you might understand the appeal better. After years of shooting stereo (same as 3D) for my personal photography, flat pictures aren't nearly as interesting to me. Different strokes.</p>

<p>The 7 perf wide image of the Belplasca interests me, and it <em>is</em> an elegant looking classic. </p>

 

<p>Nice timing for this thread; I just used my Stereo Realist this morning! Though I'm very late to the party, having only started using it in the late 1990s, it remains my primary camera for everyday use. </p>

<p>1947-1971, that's a long production run for a single basic model, isn't it? Thank you JDM for spotlighting one of the best uses for Kodachrome ever!</p>

<p>Karim I disagree. Having worked at a photo lab for years, I saw many times people would bring in old prints in shoeboxes or slide trays which had been forgotten for decades. Such treasures were found in the backs of closets, and in the homes of recently deceased relatives. The people would ask for scans and/or copies which were easily accomplished because of their archival stability. Conversely, we also got plenty of people who would ask us to try to pull files off of corrupted cards, or discs which could no longer be read. </p>

<p>Digitizing images requires a regular maintenance throughout the years that the vast majority of people just wouldn't do--backups of backups. Most would tend to forget such things, just as they forgot about those old prints. Imagine if those people brought in a shoebox of 5 inch floppies to copy. The advice in the article may not be the best to preserve an image with the highest quality, but based on my experience, it is more likely that the image will at least survive (and has he says, in an easily retrievable form) by printing it out.</p>

<p>And I like that he used his last Kodachrome to shoot stereo slides of his granddaughter. I used my last rolls to shoot stereos of my family, too!</p>

 

<p>Chuck, some info on the first version of the two-color process called Kodachrome can be found at the American Widescreen Museum, here:<br>

<a href="http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/subtract.htm">http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/subtract.htm</a></p>

 

<p>As usual, I documented this Christmas in 3-D with my Stereo Realist. Lamentably, no longer in Kodachrome. I didn't want to cut it too close, but admire those who are managing to capture this last holiday season with those "nice bright colors."</p>

 

<p>What everyone else said, Congratulations! That's a great story, and with a beginning like that, you should have many happy years together. Lose Kodachrome, gain a wife! Not a bad tradeoff. :) All the best.</p>

<p>I just finished my last roll of K64 last weekend, and have half a roll of K25 to go and that's it for my Kodachrome. </p>

<p>Since I overwhelmingly shoot stereo slides, Ektar is not an option. I've pretty much made the transition to Astia 100F. There may be some Provia or E100G in my future as well. One camera will be loaded with Velvia, ready for the more spectacular sunrises. As much as I love(d) Kodachrome, making the best of the situation ain't so bad...for now.</p>

 

<p>And Doug, my parents' "thirty feet away" rule precludes me from these kinds of shots, most likely regardless how many excellent examples I show them. Their years have given them an abundance of stubbornness! But over the years, I have many great stereo snapshots of them in familiar situations and surroundings. They are priceless to me!</p>

 

<p>Cliff, in the first pair, Mode A is the parallel pair and Mode B is the cross-eyed pair. In the second set, #1 is the cross-eyed pair and #2 is viewed parallel. When I made my last post, someohow I missed Doug's second stereo pair of his step-mother. That is indeed parallel, and I have not yet learned to view those as I can with cross-eyed stereos.</p>

<p>Here's a way some of get around the either/or situation. Posting the images in a triptych style arranged L-R-L. That way, the first pair can be viewed in parallel and the second pair, cross-eyed. Too bad about the scaling. It looks MUCH BETTER in the viewer.</p>

<p><img src="http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/Treat3D2B.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Bill, you're describing the parallel "free-view" technique. Doug has the images positioned correctly for the cross-eyed method. I can only view cross-eyed and the stereo pair looks great.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html">http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Very nice, Doug. I wish I could get my parents to sit for portraits like those. They're in the same age range and last time I put on a slide show of my recent stereos (also taken with a Realist), they REALLY hated how they looked! You are so right about mature people. </p>

<p>I wouldn't give up those slides for anything, but there's a new rule in their house: No close-ups of them ever. But if I happen to take any, just don't show those at the next slide show. Maybe if I show them how wonderfully yours turned out...</p>

<p>I'm with those who feel 3D will always remain a niche market. It's been around since practically the beginning of photography itself, and has its share of supporters throughout the years, yet in spite of what it offers, it never beomes dominant. Why? Because 3D images aren't easily shared. They are less convenient than 2D photographs.</p>

<p>When I show people my 3D slides, the first response is invariably, <strong>"WOW!"</strong> The second response often involves pointing to the viewer and asking, "So you always have to use this to see them?" That seems to be the dealbreaker for most people. Too inconvenient.</p>

<p>As Gerry points out, once there is something in place in which to easily see and share 3D images, they will become more popular. I'm not sure how quickly that will happen, and even then I believe it will increase in popularity, but I wouldn't put money on it becoming dominant (as much as I love the format).</p>

<p>I've found shooting 3D with the Stereo Realist is relatively easy, once I attuned my thinking to the z-axis, and certainly easier than trying to shoot with my digital P&S yesterday, it kept shutting down on me as I was framing. GRRRRRR! Maybe the W1 operates better than my P&S, but until I can see the images with the impact I get from my hald-held viewer, I'll be holding off on it myself.</p>

 

<p>I'm just getting to the "acceptance" stage of losing Kodachrome! I hope E-6 sticks around for a while yet. For what I do, I have little use for digital and no use for C-41. When they say Ektar is a suitable replacement for any kind of slide film, have they tried looking at it through a slide viewer? Not so hot. When I can no longer shoot slides, I guess I'll change gears and jump back into B&W with both feet.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In a similar vein, the Kinemacolor motion picture process, developed in 1906, involved photographing B&W film through alternating red and green filters. When projected properly through similar filters (at a double than normal frame rate) the effect was color movies!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm">http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm</a></p>

<p>Here's some Kinemacolor footage--demonstrating that with ANY successive exposure color process, motion produced color fringing. But on slower moving subjects, it looked surprisingly good.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMYSMH-eMkU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMYSMH-eMkU</a></p>

<p>To me, the most wonderful thing about these old color processes is that because they are recorded on B&W emulsions, there is no color fading! </p>

 

<p>One of the most positive aspects of the past was the expectation of the future. Even in the shadow of a world war, the New York World's Fair of 1939-40 promised us the wonders of the "World of Tomorrow." Perhaps the Autorama was overly-optimistic, but a surprising number of predictions came true. Even in the 1950s, while some were digging fallout shelters in their backyards, Disney gave us "Tomorrowland" on television (y'know, that gizmo demonstrated by RCA at the '39 World's Fair), and in person at Disneyland. Once we got over the shock of Sputnik, the endless possibilities of outer space meant a future full of wonder, real and imagined.</p>

<p>Today, it seems that among lots of people I know, the future doesn't seem so bright. No doubt there's been much of that in each preceeding generation, but back in the day, even if the optimism was more superficial, it was more common, expressed in many different forms, including putting a space suit on Bucky Beaver to sell Ipana toothpaste. As the goals of NASA become more modest, it seems a natural that ours shrink a bit as well.</p>

<p>My husband is a child of the 1950s, I'm from the 1960s, and many who know us may find us very nostalgic. My cameras of choice are my 1950s Stereo Realists, not (just) because they're cool and retro, but they provide us with beautiful stereo images for which I've not yet found any substitute. Our "home theater" shows film prints, no DVDs or Blu-Rays. "Going out for dinner" to us means taking a 1950s car to the drive-in restaurant. We find old tv shows just look "right" if viewed on a Philco Predicta tv. Now that I think about it, maybe those who know us have a point! :p </p>

<p>However, though I still overwhelmingly shoot film for weddings, I'll scan and edit them in a computer. I enjoy B&W darkroom work, but greatly appreciate the control the computer affords me when working with color. On our way to the drive-in, the radio plays <em>only </em>music appropriate for that era, recorded from old 45 rpm records into the computer and then dumped onto an mp3 player attached to a Redi-Rad, which feeds the signal into the radio. The best of old and new technology! </p>

<p>But in the end, the past is a great place to "visit," but there's no point in pining for it. We appreciate what came before, and take advantage of how all that can be used today. For a long time, it has seemed to me that we find comfort in the past primarily because we survived it. It is always that uncertainty (in varying degrees) of the present which makes the past appear preferrable. The past is a done deal, and the history of tomorrow has yet to be written. Kind of scary sometimes.</p>

<p>Sorry for the rant. I hope it makes some sense. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can't get the image of Hopper as Frank Booth out of my head--stuck in there ever since seeing "Blue Velvet" back in 1984. And "True Grit" is a good one, but he's also great in yet another John Wayne western, "The Sons of Katie Elder." </p>

<p>Christopher Burkett continues to shoot on film and print traditionally. He produces B&W masks to control contrast and color balance, but it remains analog, and his images certainly have a strong visual impact.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html">http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Glad to offer something of value, guys.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is that the name "Kodachrome" was used BEFORE being applied to the specific film we all know and (many of us) love. Kodak originally coined the term for an early motion picture color process.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/subtract.htm">http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/subtract.htm</a></p>

<p>So what is being discussed is already an example of recycling a product name.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Rocket 88 became a household name.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And like Kodachrome, it got it's own song. :-)</p>

 

<p>Great stuff! I found the tv news segment featuring his work:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Gotta love the depth of field from those digital P&S cameras!</p>

<p>Ha Gerry, I could almost recreate your still life here! Unfortunately, for Christmas, I presented my Stereo Realist Manual to someone I'm bringing into the cult. :) And George (Dr. T) is the man when it comes to this stuff. Reading about his recent conversion to digital sent shivers down my spine. Surely <em>something </em>must be freezing over. He's been quite the advocate of stereo film photography. I'll stick with the economical Realist and slide film until I can't get it anymore. And there is still one roll of Kodachrome 64 left in the fridge, which will be shot well before the Dec. 31 deadline. </p>

<p>You might be surprised to hear that both the Technicolor and Oculus 3D film-based systems demonstrably throw MORE light on the screens than the current digital systems! The big difference this time over the 1980s incarnation is that the companies make sure the systems are set up to their own specs. I've read plenty of horror stories from the 1980s 3D, which was often done wrong as much as right. Maybe it's because our familiarity with stereo photography, but I have no interest in seeing any of the "converted" movies. Genre notwithstanding, I found the (real) 3D in "The Final Destination" very well done. That NASCAR race at the beginning...WOW! Now we are interested in seeing the new IMAX film, "Hubble 3D." IMAX 3D is by far the best 3D I've ever seen! They don't have to worry about the dreaded "stereo window!" ;p</p>

<p>Gerry, thanks for the link! I agree that 3D film may very well be a temporary stopgap measure, but it will extend the usefulness of film distribution for a bit more time. Equipping for 3D film right now is about one-tenth that of any digital 3D. Digital saves money only for the studios and distributors, as cinemas are forced to invest in high maintanence (and early obsolescence) digital projectors, and are now charged a "virtual print fee." Gotta love Hollywood accounting techniques! Last I heard, for a sizable feature to be released on film, the cost is between $1500-$3000 per print, not quite so much as Mr. Epstein says, but it could very well be climbing due to more limited print runs.</p>

<p>Fujifilm recently released a 3D digital P&S camera, and Panasonic offers an HD 3D video camera on special order. Both are currently pricey for my very limited budget, but we all know that will change as well. I can't imagine a time (maybe the 1950s) where "3D" has gotten more attention. Crest is even making a 3D toothpaste!</p>

<p>Cory, I appreciate your concern. I hope that 2D versions continue to be made available for those unable or uninclined to watch 3D. What have you watched in 3D? I'm wondering if different processes (RealD, Dolby, IMAX) might have different effects, as each has its own unique methods of display. I once did a 3D slideshow and one person refused the polarized glasses. I wanted to explain that even if she couldn't see in 3D, the glasses would give her one clear image rather than a jumble of both, but she wasn't interested at all. Maybe she has experienced the same problems as you have in the past. </p>