Scanning Kodak Ektachrome Slides - Your Recommendations Please

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper context.
If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:

"I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me."

I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.

Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.

Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
scanner does not show anything special.
H> Actually, no it's not. Real data measurements will always beat "eye"
H> measurements because "eye" measurements are both subjective and, the
H> farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory. Can you
H> remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?

H> --

H> Hecate - The Real One
H> (e-mail address removed)
H> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
H> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
the slides.

And this impression formed on his own eyes is compared against what
reference exactly? His 40 year old memories? I doubt he can remember
every image taken after that time let alone how saturated the original
slide was. Added to that, he has 40 years of cultural education in the
popular media modifying not only his memories of the period but his
expectations of the images.

There is a vast difference between "still acceptable" and "not faded at
all", which is the issue I am trying to explain to him. His statement
that these 40 year old slides are indistinguishable from those taken
yesterday suggests the latter, when in actual fact he is only
demonstrating the former - with no indication whatsoever as to how close
to that critical level of acceptability that they actually are nor any
concept of how much longer they are likely to remain so.

He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
than yours.

No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.

It is a fact that Ektachrome, particularly Ektachrome from the period
Ole is referring to, fades significantly unless stored at very low
temperatures. This has been confirmed by independent tests and, in the
case of these older films, by Kodak themselves. Claiming that you have
slides on that film from that period which have been stored
conventionally and are indistinguishable from new slides is merely a
statement that your level of acceptability and/or expectation is
unusually low, not an assessment of emulsion longevity.

Nevertheless, Ole's argument does dispute the reference that our Kodak
representative on this thread made - he certainly does still view his
images after 40 years, and he is not alone!

 

[Hecate]

You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper context.
If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:

"I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me."

I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.

Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.

The weasel phrase here (weasel phrases/words are what advertisers add
into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is "do not look
significantly different". That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
significantly different. No-one is saying that you aren't telling the
truth "as you see it" - just that your eyes aren't seeing the "whole
picture."

Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
scanner does not show anything special.

Try importing the images into Photoshop and use the droppers to see
what co0lours you say are alike have as an RGB value.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Peter D]

Actually, no it's not.

Actually, yes it is.

He is the only one in a fully-qualified position to make the unequivocal
statement of what he saw with his own eyes and what impressions, if any, his
viewing created. You cannot possibly knwo more about the facts than him.
Unless you can know and demonstrate he is a liar, delusional, or incapable
of assessing the evidence of his own eyes, you cannot make a better claim to
what he saw that he does. That makes his claim stronger.

Real data measurements will always beat "eye" measurements because "eye"
measurements are both subjective and, the
farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory.

Immaterial. He didn't claim his impression was better than "real data
measurements". He simply stated the facts as best he knew them. You are the
one that asked ofr "firm data". Yet you have failed to provide any "firm
data". All you've done so far is produce repeats of your unqualified
opinion.

Can you remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?

Immaterial. My memory is not the issue.

HAND

 

[Peter D]

The weasel phrase here

Weasel phrase? What utter nonsense. It was an expression of his impressions,
stated truthfully.

into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is "do not look
significantly different". That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
significantly different.

And it doesn't mean they _are_. Do you have any actual evidence, any
empirical data, to support your claim? If not, maybe you should go get some
or admit that you cannot possibly know better than him what he sees with his
own eyes.

 

[Peter D]

No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.

Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
Therefore, his claim stands.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
Therefore, his claim stands.

From a post earlier in the thread:

The main point was that it has survived unfaded.

No qualifications, no limitations, no caveats.

I don't *need* to establish that he is delusional, unqualified or a liar
to dispute that, merely refer him back to his own, original statement,
which is exactly what I did in my reply in the next article in the
thread:

How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
have no firm data to back your statement.

Ole may well have expressed his personal opinion as he sees the
comparison in his original statement. My point in commenting was that
his opinion is of little merit in the context of the thread up to that
point because it only addressed his "level of satisfaction" with the
images, not whether they had faded at all or not. He could not provide
evidence to support his subsequent unqualified statement above which,
unless the slides were stored in very unusual conditions (the exact
requirements of which were unkown at the time they were made) then
fading was inevitable and that such fading has been established by Kodak
themselves as well as independent testers.

On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
conclusions at that!

 

[Hecate]

Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
Therefore, his claim stands.

No. He categorically stated that it was unfaded. You go and read his
post. He cannot state that if he is just using his eyes.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Peter D]

On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
conclusions at that!

And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I "alleged" that if a
person states an opinion based on the impression of what they see with their
own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
delusional, a liar, or unqualified. You haven't. Therefore, his original
statement stands.

Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I "alleged" that if a
person states an opinion

Here is where you are in error.

The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is not
an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.

based on the impression of what they see with their
own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
delusional, a liar, or unqualified.

Not for the statement made.

You haven't.

I don't have to, simply demonstrate that the absolute statement must be
false - something that Ole subsequently agreed when he admitted that he
couldn't even tell if the differences he saw between these old slides
and more recent ones were due to changed in colour balance or because
the older slides had faded.

Therefore, his original
statement stands.

That would be the original statement that he has subsequently corrected
and modified, would it?

Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more?

Obviously not, otherwise you would have noted through proof by
contradiction that your initial postulate must be wrong.

 

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

KM> Here is where you are in error.

KM> The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is
KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.

Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
objectivity.
But I don't want to argue about this any more. You can belive what you
want.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

KM> Here is where you are in error.

KM> The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is
KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.

Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
objectivity.

And, as already stated, the response to your original statement was to
the effect that you could not actually make such an assessment by eye
that was of any relevance to the previous discussions, due to the
changes in the emulsion over that time. Something you later agreed.