Shooting with Kodachrome 64 in 35mm

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by Uncle Bill, Aug 22, 2006.

  1. Uncle Bill

    Uncle Bill Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,381
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Oakville and
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Got a question for the studio audience, I experimented with Kodachrome 64 and I shot the roll with a polarising filter on the lenses I used which for the record is Zuiko with my OM-4. I find the images on the dark side, should I have left UV/Haze/1a filter on the lens? Up until now I have been shooting with Fuji Velvia 100 for the record.

    Bill
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Dave Parker

    Dave Parker Inactive

    Messages:
    4,049
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It looks like your meter may have not been working right? they seem to be about 1 stop under what they need to be? did you do any independant metering of the scene? The UV would not have made any difference and did you have the ISO set up correctly in your camera?

    Little more information would go a ways to help you out Bill.

    If you could, post your exposure data, f/stop, lens, speed or anything else you recorded.

    Dave
     
  3. Uncle Bill

    Uncle Bill Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,381
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Oakville and
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think the meter is fine on the OM-4

    I shot some Velvia a few weeks later with the results posted below and we all know how tricky that film is to play with.
    I shot with (going by memory here) a 28 f3.5 Zuiko lens opened up about halfway with a polariser on the front. It was a partly cloudy hazy day mid afternoon.

    Bill
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Claire Senft

    Claire Senft Member

    Messages:
    3,242
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Location:
    Milwaukee, W
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I do not think that using a haze filter would have done much except perhaps add a slight warth to the shadows. To me it looks like it is about 2/3 to 1 stop under-exposed. K64 is a somewhat contrasty film.
     
  5. DBP

    DBP Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    Alexandria,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Are the slides really that dark, or is there a scanning artifact here? Kodachrome can be tricky to scan.
     
  6. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I think it is what you are mentioning. I use a Nikon 5000D scanner - and it has a "special" Kodachrome setting.

    I also think the image is somewhat under exposed. I did a little brightening (gosh - that sounds like English weather) in PS CS2 and "found" the white door in the upper right hand corner.

    Here's a "side by side" - Bill's image first, PS'd on the right. Of course the shot is "deteriorated" by reiteration...
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Michel Hardy-Vallée

    Michel Hardy-Vallée Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,350
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    Montréal (QC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Bill, your K64 looks normal to me. Your highlights do not seem blown up, and the shadows can only be dark as they are, given the nature of the scene ; it could have used maybe a half stop more of exposure, but not much more.

    I've always found that that film had a bit more "70's brown" in its palette than modern E6 emulsions. You won't get the same type of saturation you get with those films, so your shadows may become darker more quickly, and the lower saturation/deep shadow makes the overall contrast less intense to the eye. Pictures taken with it always look a bit as if they are coming from a 1974 magazine.
     
  8. Matt5791

    Matt5791 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,003
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    England, Bir
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think that K64 (or any Kodachrome) is definitely more tricky to play with than Velvia.
     
  9. Steve Roberts

    Steve Roberts Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Location:
    Near Tavisto
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Agreed (within the confines of the variables of digitising, etc.)
    I've found the opposite to be the case. Having been a life-long user of mainly Kodachrome, I was disappointed to hear of the impending US-only processing and inevitable delay when sending from Europe. Thus, I have been looking at alternatives. When I see the Fuji and Ektachrome slides taken by myself and others, my initial reaction is that they are a little overexposed compared with K64, but take a day's break and look at either in isolation and they look OK. I don't think there's any right or wrong, just "different".

    Best wishes,

    Steve
     
  10. digiconvert

    digiconvert Member

    Messages:
    809
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Location:
    Cannock UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    From my limited experience your K64s look Ok to me,as someone else has noted it is more contrasty than E6 films , hence the lack of detail in the shadows. If you look at the background in the BMW shot the shops over the way seem to be correctly lit.
    K64 is also a beast to scan. If I am going to scan I have found that 1/2 a stop overexposure (yes on slides !) gives a better chance of getting an image you can work with. You can also have a bit of fun with some normally exposed slides and get a 'retro look' as here.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I like K64 a lot, I am trying other slide films but keep going back to it for its contrast and clarity- just me I guess - but it is one of the great advantages of film that you can choose a different film for a different look.

    Keep shooting !
    Chris