hillary_charles

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about still frame pictures but I was blown away by Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I watched it in 3d and for that matter twice. Albeit, to be entirely honest, the allure of the story, the costumes and how pretty Alice was made more of an impression on me and the 3d aspect merely padded my curiosity.<br />Does 3d photography require special glasses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>3D photography doesn't require special glasses, but 3D viewing does, whether it be polarized, via a special viewer, or lenticular filter over the print itself, in order to make sure each eye sees the view intended for it. Normally 3D photography requires two views, more or less replicating the differing views of our own two eyes. Ironically, "Alice in Wonderland" was NOT shot in 3D, but digitally converted after the fact. Same with "Clash of the Titans," albeit poorly from what I've read. "AVATAR" was shot (and natively rendered) in true 3D.</p>

<p> And don't discard film-based motion picture presentation just yet; recently, Technicolor introduced a 35mm 3D system for modern 3D, and both "Clash of the Titans" and "How To Train Your Dragon" are currently being shown in 3D FILM as well as digital around the country! The Technicolor system is basically an updated version of the Stereovision system of the 1970s-80s, taking advantage of modern filmstocks and optics, all for a fraction of the cost of any digital 3D system, making it very attractive for smaller cinema chains and single screen owners. Another compay, Oculus3D is doing the same thing with a different 35mm film format. Reports on the quality compared with digital are very favorable. Back to the Future!</p>

<p> Like others here, I LOVE 3D and stereophotography! It's been my experience that people overwhelmingly prefer the impact of my stereo images, but aren't interested in doing it themselves due to the extra cost and inconvenience in viewing. However, I have revived the 1950s practice of offering a package of 3D wedding stereo slides with viewer. I guess as long as they don't have to do it themselves, they love it too! If 3D was no more involved to produce than 2D, it would have been the norm by now, IMO.</p>

<p> Harry, I'm also curious to know how the eagle photo was presented. Usually, I've been disappointed with lenticular 3D images, but back in the 1950's, the Paul Hesse Studios produced probably the best lenticulars ever, done by photographer Harvey Prever. Whatever technique he used died with him. It's possible that a half century later, computers are finally able to catch up with what Mr. Prever knew!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>At the risk of continuing to appear to have a one-track mind, my old Stereo Realist cameras fit the critera for this thread. Totally manual, very rugged, and the most reliable cameras I've ever used. They've been my primary cameras for the last 12 years.<br>

<img src="http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo11/Skylark67/Realists1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I continue to shoot stereo (3D) slides with vintage 1950s cameras. IMO, no digital 3D display has yet matched the impact of these slides as seen with a good viewer. The "you are there" feeling is overwhelming, impressing even every pro photographer who sees them. Mostly I've been using Kodachrome, but have been drifting toward Astia as the end of K-chrome approaches. <br>

Even projecting them (with polarizing glasses like at the movies) has a profound effect. Though great results can be accomplished digitally these days, there's nothing like the basic simplicity and purity of a projected transparency. I'll be shooting slides as long as possible.</p>

 

<p>Now The B&H site lists KR as "discontinued." Shortdated PKR is still available, but getting too rich for my blood. </p>

<p>Gerry you are totally correct that good stereo is best experienced when the image fills a large part of one's field of view. I know exactly what you mean about the "WOW" factor; something I strive for every time I show my stereo slides, whether in the handheld viewers or via projected slide show. Anything less seems more of a gimmick and not the immersive experience it can and should be.</p>

<p>That's why I'm a bit leery about any 3D print process. Those old Nimslo images showed more "cardboarding" and less immersiveness. Stereo Realist cameras and viewers are still very affordable and durable. As long as I can get slide film, I'll stick with that system. In this age of digital, those slides still blow people away!</p>

<p>Waters said he chose the title because he loved the idea of people going to the video store asking "Do you have John Waters' 'Pecker'?" :)<br>

I like the movie, but his later films can't prepare you for "Pink Flamingos." The final scene of PF is a must-see cinema moment. Of course that depends upon your definition of "must-see." The man is a true <em>auteur</em>. Also, he's a great public speaker. I could listen to him for hours, his POV is delightfully skewed. </p>

<p>The description I read elsewhere of prints with a covering lenticular "lens" sheet sounds much like those from the Nimslo and Nishika cameras. I hope these show better depth, although the 3D e-frame intrigues me. </p>

<p>Though this is the first dedicated digital 3D camera, 3D really isn't new to picturetaking. In addition to the above mentioned circa 1980s cameras, the late 1940s brought the 35mm Stereo Realist and many others. And even those were just modern versions of the stereo 3D cameras which date back to the mid 1800s.</p>

<p>FWIW, I've been sending Kodachrome through W*M for a couple years. I shoot with a Stereo Realist which produces non-standard 5-perf-wide images, so I always request "DO NOT CUT OR MOUNT" and haven't had any problems. </p>

<p>Keeping my fingers crossed for next time!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By 'people' we are talking about a typical amateur snapshooter, correct? Given this assumption, how many typical film snapshooters have properly stored their photographs and negatives over the years? Most of the time, when an older relative brings out the photographs, it's a collection of random images in an album (or more likely, an old shoebox) that have been saved. Many of the photos have tape marks or rips, and I have yet to find an older relative who bothered to save the negatives of those priceless family photos. Given the increasing technical competence of today's digital photographers, I find it hard to believe they could do worse to their image collections.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But even a damaged photographic print is viewable, and can be (digitally) restored if necessary. Improperly stored digital files which are forgotten for decades...?<br>

At work, we routinely see such vintage pictures. We also see old Kodachrome slides found after a relative has passed away--often the surviving relatives had no idea the slides existed. Yet there they are, like new, after half a century, without having to migrate the data. AND we frequently print from old negatives. I recall some color MF negs from the 1950's which printed amazingly well.<br>

The fastidious photographer who maintains digital files is the exception. In these cases, the person we often see is indeed the casual snapshooter (or decendant of one) who has pictures in a hodge-podge of analog formats which haven't necessarily been cared for. As fragile as the materials can be, it continues to amaze me how resilient they actually are. Technology changes but people don't, and I don't see the average person caring any more about proper archiving techniques than before. Fifty years from now, if someone finds a "shoebox" full of CDs, or cheap inkjet prints, will there be as much to work with? </p>

<p>The Ilford website has the "KIT30.2" listed, which looks like it produces 5 litres instead of the old P-30 kit's 2 litres. So I'm guessing that if and when B&H gets the chemistry, it will be the new kit and the listing will be updated accordingly. I'm not to eager to see it though--$169 for the P-30 kit?!?!?!? I used to get it for $40, and it wasn't THAT long ago....was it?</p>

 

<p>Aren't there some people who've been trying to duplicate the (apparently simpler) Autochrome process without success?<br>

I don't see the idea of reviving Kodachrome as very practical. IMO, best to celebrate the last of it over the coming months and, as much as it pains me to say, move on. <br>

Acceptance, it's much less frustrating.</p>

<p>You could try these two sources:<br>

<a href="http://www.clik3d.com/">http://www.clik3d.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.snap3d.com/">http://www.snap3d.com/</a></p>

<p>I usually check back at W*M just a little over one week after dropping off my Kodachrome. And it's always back by then. I just dropped off a roll yesterday morning--now watch them prove me wrong!</p>

<p>I'm with Jim! The problems we've had with the USPS tell me that W*M isn't necessarily the greater risk. When we have packages with "Delivery Confirmation" delivered to neighbors nearly a mile away (and with delivery confirmed to..."somewhere"), how much worse could walmart's distribution be?</p>

<p>Dan, you may be correct about the "no cut" request not applying to E6 instead of the K-14. Shortly before I quit sending through Ritz, I was informed than any E6 they process HAD to be cut. No exceptions! Since I only sent my Kodachrome through Ritz, I knew that Dwayne's did the work and it was not an issue.<br>

If Wallyworld's E6 goes to Fuji, perhaps that's where the "always cut" rule comes from...?</p>

<p>I shoot Kodachrome on a Stereo Realist which produces pairs of 5-perf wide images and therefore cannot be cut/mounted without ruining some of the images. I've been sending the film through WM for a year now with "Do not cut or mount" instructions and haven't had a problem. </p>

<p>I always request that my Kodachrome return uncut and unmounted when I write up the bag at W*M, and so far have had no problems. <br>

As has been mentioned before, trusting it to the USPS worries me much more than taking it to Wallyworld, and since the price is better there, it's a no-brainer IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can just imagine what was said about Eastman's roll film by purists in 1900. Their opinion was that glass plates were here to stay for any real serious photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That reminds me of something I read about the author Lewis Carroll:</p>

<p><em><strong>"Lewis Carroll became interested in photography in the infancy of this scientific art form. He was a man of infinite patience and one who paid attention to the smallest detail. These qualities were mandatory to be a photographer in the 1850's. The wet collodion process was demanding indeed. It is thought that he gave up photography when the dry developing process came to the fore, because it made photography too easy. Anybody could do that. Where was the challenge?"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. However, I'm not sticking with my old Realist out of stubbornness. For me, the format is by far the most versatile and cost-effective, plus digital stereo displays just don't give me that "you are there" feel like my stuff shot on slide film. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I <em>have</em> seen this and that is exactly my point, that slide shooters need not despair if slide film becomes unavailable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robin, not that I actually despair (much) of such things, my camera of choice is a 1950's Stereo Realist, and if my preferred method of viewing the slides from this camera is in its companion viewer, what are my options if slide film becomes unavailable? And no, I really don't need any more doorstops!</p>

<p>Yeah Tom, I wish I came up with the idea, too. :p</p>

<p>Astia 100F. I've shot several weddings with it, and it holds all the details in the brides' gowns as well as the grooms' tuxedos. And as mentioned before, skintones are wonderful. Never have I taken a shot with it that I wish had more saturation.</p>

<p>A customer came to our shop with an auto-everything Nikon P&S with the complaint that it must be broken since it didn't work.<br>

Me: Did you check the batteries?<br>

Her: This uses batteries?<br>

Me: Yup, this is the first model Nikon made after they stopped powering them with magic elves.<br>

Fortunately the customer was a good sport, and realized her question was dumb. </p>

<p>And didn't the Olympia camera have an "Optical Color Lens?" Sounds good to me!<br>

My sister used to work at a doctor's office and one of the other receptionists told her she was going to be a professional photographer. The woman showed my sister her "pro" camera. Yup, from TIME Magazine! I wonder how that's working out for her...<br>

Back when 8mm video was popular, some timeshare or real estate outfit would entice people to hear their sales pitch by promising them an "8mm movie camera." Naturally, most people think "movie" and "video" are the same thing, so for a while people were bringing to our shop these cheap plastic Super-8 Bentley movie cameras. Bently, such a classy name, must be vaulable! After we told them that it wasn't for video, and how much the film, processing (plus the required projector) would cost, they all realized they'd been had. </p>

Ron,

 

A couple of things to keep in mind as well. The early 3-strip Technicolor IB prints were timed differently than later

ones, so it could appear that they didn't hold their color well. Original prints of "Gone With The Wind" were timed to

appear almost sepia, with less saturation than the 1954 prints, which displays the color scheme we're all used to.

I've seen nitrate reels of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" which had a similar subdued palette compared to the

enhanced versions we see today.

 

And at this point you may well know that acetate film has its own longevity problems. It can suffer from hydrolysis,

commonly known among film collectors as "vinegar syndrome" often reducing the usable life of a film to considerably

less than that of a well maintained nitrate print.

 

It doesn't matter to me which lasts longer, Kodachrome or Technicolor. I love the look of both processes and am

grateful that so much has been preserved in those formats with a longevity that was practically a happy accident.

Larry, you may be right. I've never experienced noticable damage or fading from carbon arc EXCEPT from some old

drive-in intermission film. Since they use bigger lamps, the effect on the film can be harsh, and the fading can be

quite obvious. Of course, to accumulate that kind of damage, intermission films would have been shown thousands

of times over the years, so they do hold up pretty well considering, although I don't think any of the arc-faded

examples I have are Technicolor.

 

John, I'll have to learn more about Flexichrome. Sounds like it was an interesting process.