Author Topic: Info on 81 1808 (Read 486 times)

mica · « **Reply #15 on:** September 21, 2004, 12:55:01 PM »

Back to that 1808 number, here's what the file has to say:

top and back: Vermilion
body: Mahogany
neck: Maple and Purpleheart 34 long scale
fingerboard: Ebony with Mother of Pearl oval inlays
electronics: Series I
birthday: April 2, 1981
originally sold to: Washington Music
one previous registered owner in November 1981

bigredbass · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2004, 09:50:40 PM »

I just LOVE the see-thru tints. I always catch it when I say this, but colored Alembics just float my boat, but primarily over the lighter woods. Wouldn't work too well over the dark woods for sure.

I love even the idea of a purple ALEMBIC, but I could never bring myself to put the strap button in the heel.

I always think the world looks better on Fuji VELVIA, so I guess bright colors must be in my DNA.

J o e y

palembic · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2004, 11:26:34 PM »

Brother Joey,

than I just discovered something we have in common: our love for the Fuji Velvia (well ...apart from playing bass and Alembic of course)

Paul the bad one

Oh ...huh ...were you an old Kodakchrome 25 lover too???

dnburgess · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2004, 02:55:56 AM »

Kodachrome 25 - mmmm!

bigredbass · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2004, 09:34:26 PM »

I ALWAYS loved Kodachrome for the color and their was something so mentally stimulating about dealing with the world at a film speed of 25, the bigger f/stops, the slower speeds . . . but I caved in to easier access of E6 processing and Velvia as more and more K25 processors vanished (as well as the film! It's just not the same at 64.)

I've often thought that the Kodak missed the boat in the trend towards more 'saturated' colors that Fuji propelled, since K25 was the original super-color-staurated film. Kodak has steadily moved towards this look.

I wonder if in this mad dash to digital photography, we film (especially transparency) guys will become the photo equivalent of tube-amp guys . . . and really good scans of first rate negs or slides blow the doors off purely digital images. Plus I can't accidentally erase negatives when my hard drive goes south!

J o e y

bob · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2004, 10:38:03 PM »

Okay, as long as we're straying... the 25 was great. I still own three tripods, each successively heavier, as I worked toward slower shutter speeds (and mirror lock up for long lenses, etc.).

Velvia relaxed those concerns by a stop or two, it was easier to push, and E6 was cheaper, faster, and way less harsh on the environment. Velvia (to this day, I keep thinking 'Velveeta', much as I hate the stuff) had better blacks, and like other E6's (e.g. Ektachromes) was great in the blue-green range - but I still think Kodachromes, maybe even the 64, retained a slight edge in the red-orange area (think Autumn Leaves, to maintain the musical context...).

I was pretty serious for about ten years, but stopped about five ago, because I just wasn't ready to cross the 'digitial divide'. I'm getting close, the Nikon D70 is somewhat tempting... I have about half a dozen very nice lenses that are looking for a new mount.

Regarding your last comment, Joey, I stumbled onto a site a bit over a year ago that was quite intriguing. It was by some professional landscape photographer, who happened to be trying out Canon stuff, and he appeared to have done an extremely rigorous comparison of scanned slides vs. digital images, analyzing both level of detail and color accuracy.

The results were quite surprising to me, and to him as well (don't know the guy, but it didn't sound like he was getting paid to lie), and it was the first time I started thinking maybe it was time to get back into photography.

If you're really interested, send me an email and I'll see if I can find the site again. Times change, if you're patient enough :-)
-Bob

palembic · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2004, 01:23:58 AM »

Rats ...and talking about being off-topic.
Well ...since I started it.

I REALLY liked K25 a LOT.
In fact all low ASA films (there has been a 50 Agfa once - the one in the silver pack with big blue dot ...but that could be something entirely EU) I liked but ...the K25 WAS special.
I did some work too with the K64. I made a nice slideshow for a school with it (photographed and programmed myself) and the texture and colour of the slides were amazing.

Brother Bob, here in EU too was a very extensive test in comparison between (top level) Digital and Traditional (do they use the world Analog here?

) pictures. It was a landscape with a village. Pictures taken on tripod with about the same lens and both were magnified the same grade and details were compared. Conclusion was that the D were overall better pictures, although not on all points. Bob ...I think we're talking about the same test here. I appeared in a photo-magazine here.

Paul the bad one

adriaan · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2004, 02:32:19 AM »

I don't know technically what you're all talking about, and I only ever see what comes out of consumer-level cameras and photo prints. However, I know my father used to have a relatively simple Kodak camera (1960-ish, not even a reflex) which somehow had a very nice lense that was very good on colour, brightness and depth of focus. He used to let a professional photolab do the prints, and it was always a pleasure to look at the holiday snaps. Unfortunately the camera started to fail mechanically in the mid 1980s, and the lense was integral, so he bought a decent Japanese camera with nice lenses. The prints were still good, but not quite as vibrant as before.

These days all consumer photo labs, and apparently a lot of professional labs too, will only do digital prints, regardless if you bring in a film or digital files. It's probably nicer on the environment, but I do miss the colours and especially the 'softer' contrasts that the old-style prints had and that digital prints just cannot reproduce.

By the way, I love the picture quality on the BunnyBass site: they really make the instruments shine and stand out. And then I must say that a lot of the pictures on the Alembic site are a bit fuzzy in comparison, which seems a bit of a shame.

Adriaan the ignorant one

dnburgess · « **Reply #23 on:** September 23, 2004, 03:02:31 AM »

Joey: I thought the 4 x 5 photographers were already the tube guys. I think 35mm photographers will be the Motorola power transistor guys vs the switch mode amplifiers.

Bob: I also associate K25 with Autumn.

I'm looking at getting a small studio light rig to photograph instruments for the Green Square web site - which set me to thinking about getting one of those cheap(ish) new Canon D-SLRs - would be great to get instant feedback. OTOH if I'm going to spend a lot of time setting up a still life, it would be nice to record it photochemically. Maybe I could use the D-SLR for previews and then a large format camera for the final shot. Hmmm - oh yeah, forgot I already have two jobs and a family....

funky4 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 24, 2004, 05:19:07 AM »

Hmmmmmm......

And to think, all i wanted was the build, and any other, information on the Series 1 posted on ebay with the serial # 81 1808....

?

Mica or Val....can you help me out here?

chuckf

poor_nigel · « **Reply #25 on:** September 24, 2004, 05:42:49 AM »

Mica posted it above. Here it is again:

Back to that 1808 number, here's what the file has to say:

top and back: Vermilion
body: Mahogany
neck: Maple and Purpleheart 34 long scale
fingerboard: Ebony with Mother of Pearl oval inlays
electronics: Series I
birthday: April 2, 1981
originally sold to: Washington Music
one previous registered owner in November 1981

811952 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:18:13 AM »

My vote is for Kodachrome 64. For video, it was the Ikegami 79 3-tuber for the longest time, but now the Sony 3-chip cams have caught up with tubes saturation-wise. My wife recently demoed one (Sony beta sx) with a 23-gigabyte optical drive in lieu of tape. Sweet. As for how all this relates to Alembic serial number 1808 (and what a glimpse into the future it was), do recall that film and tubes made all the pictures back then. Prints were done with enlargers and smelly chemicals, and most U.S. TV stations were only beginning to migrate away from shooting news on 16mm film. And that bass has *been there* yet will never become obsolete!!!
John

funky4 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:57:45 AM »

thanks Nigel.....i missed Mica's post among all the other post on other basses, etc.....

good playin out there

chuck f

bob · « **Reply #28 on:** September 24, 2004, 09:55:15 PM »

Okay, now that funky is happy :-)

Is Kodachrome 25 still available? Took a look last night, and noticed that I have about ten rolls in my freezer...

bigredbass · « **Reply #29 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:12:28 PM »

I worked as a one-hour lab guy for several years, and believe me, I don't miss THAT with digital! C41 is a cruel mistress, believe me.
I believe color print's doom was foreshadowed by the developing/printing process being so demanding.

Bob, I know you're right and the technology is erasing the gap, virtually ALL pro photography is digital. But I still love the magic of opening that little box and louping my slides.
But I do feel like a steam train guy watching the diesels go by.

dnb, view camera guys are the best! I wish I was a view camera guy. I saw some 8x10 Velvia transparencies from a Zone 6 guy once, and thought I'd drop dead on the spot !

F4, we can ramble from time to time. Good Luck on that bass ! ! !

J o e y