Markus, Here are some K64 photographs for you to look at. They were scanned on a Canon 8400F with VueScan using the Kodachrome setting that it has. Beyond that I haven't done any editing. The colors on the originals are much better.
http://static.flickr.com/30/62716350_c9fc7d224c.jpg http://static.flickr.com/28/62098993_6862fb7a25.jpg http://static.flickr.com/28/62097206_1cbd82bcf0.jpg Another interesting thing I found about Kodachrome is that when you hold up a slide to the light at a certain angle the the borders of objects in the image appear to be etched on the surface of the slide. Cheers, Gautam On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mark > I have the opportunity to get some Kodakchrome 64 slide film dated 2003 > including development and framing and postage > for around 2 dollars a 36 exposure roll. The film comes from a professional > photo dealer who had them always cooled in the fridge. > He sells them now because Kodak stops developing slide film here in > Switzerland at the end of the year as far as his information goes so I would > have to use it soon. He says that because of the special nature of that > Kodachrome film such a long storage should not cause quality problems. He > says that compared to today's slide film this type is rather soft and color > muted, he sounds honest to me. > > I would love to try about 40 rolls slide film at 10% of its original price, > would you trust it for **a not** important project? I have never used slide > film, I would be quite a new experience for me :-) > > > Opinions from everybody welcome > greetings > Markus > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:16 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: Who's Not Shooting Raw? > >> > >> > >>I shoot RAW exclusively: I learned my lesson back when I was shooting > >>film. I once shot an event using some cheap, outdated film because I > >>intended to use the shots for an insignificant web project. > >> > >
