> > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/01/25 Wed AM 08:44:22 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: OT: Kodachrome 25 > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:25:49AM +0000, mike wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <snicker> > > > You could even argue that not reproducing the way that certain > > > shades of orange tended to show up as purple on some films is > > > a plus - you're recreating the ideal version of the film as it > > > should have been, not how it actually behaved. > > <snack> > > > > Orange? Not blue? > > No - I really meant orange. > > A few years ago one of the CART cars was painted in an orange-and- > white colour scheme. The particular orange paint they chose had a > very strong response in the near-ultra-violet. This meant that to > some films (the one I first noticed it on was Kodak Sentra 400) the > car had a tendency to come out looking purple. > > This sort of thing is quite common when photographing flowers, many > of which have markings designed to attract bees (which can see more > of the UV end of the spectrum than human eyes manage).
That's where I've noticed a similar problem, especially trying to photgraph blubells. They are just the right shade to come out wrong. As it were. Never heard of uch a dramatic problem, though. Got any examples? m ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
