Re: dreamy Nikon lenses

[Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix.netcom.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: dreamy Nikon lenses


> Yup.
>
> Re:  Nikon--she was a dyed in the wool Nikon user but it 
> is possible before the 50's she used other cameras.
>
> Re:  Kodachrome.  When I pulled apart a slide it said 
> Kodak safety film (it's positive, not neg of course). Then 
> I pulled apart a bunch more and finally found Kodachrome 
> written on it.  The color is really luscious in all these, 
> but there is a difference in the early 40's Kodachrome 
> images into the 50's and then the later 50's on to 70's. 
> The later shots are super sharp and saturated so my 
> uneducated guess is, it was a lens change on her part. 
> But heck, she could have been shooting Pentax at the the 
> time for all I know as I wasn't born back then and even if 
> I was I didn't take note of cameras until long after.  I 
> just know that when she died I inherited the Nikon.
>
> I guess I have to agree with Don B. that the look of 
> Kodachrome is very seductive.
> Chris
  There was also a change in Kodachrome c.1958, maybe 
earlier, I just don't remember. It went from Kochrome to 
Kodachrome II. There was enough difference to generate some 
criticism and a number of articles appeared on popular 
photography magazines comparing the two. The later version 
evidently had thinner emulsions and probably many other 
differences. It was sharper and had more accurate color 
rendition. I think it was the latter that got the attention, 
a lot of photographers preferred the older stuff. I suspect 
there have been other changes since then.
  Of course your photographer may well have changed lenses 
or even cameras. I used both kinds of Kodachrome at the time 
and did not see as radical a change as you describe.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com