Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,495   Posts: 1,543,020   Online: 765
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,264
    Images
    148
    Ron's comment about 1988 is apt, by then Fuji's 50D (and 100D) had really begun to eat into the Kodachrome market.

    The advantages were films which could be processed quickly, with superb colour rendition, tonality and sharpness. Unlike the US, which had a number of processing labs, in Europe Kodachrome processing was slow and most photographers needed the film processed within 24hrs.

    The other advantage of the new Fuji films was they were available in all formats.

    Since the release of 50D and 100D I've only used Fuji films E^ or C41 for my colour work.

    Having said that Kodachrome 25 slides do have that unique edge. If only the'd make LF Kodachrome again . . . I seem to remember seeing some by Weston or Adams at an exhibition a few years ago.

    Ian

  2. #12
    Matt5791's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England, Birmingham
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    998
    Images
    17
    I used some K200 on and off over the last few years and while it was really quite grainy (especially printed) I thought it had a lovely romantic quality for certain applications.

    So I rather liked it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    I didn't use Kodachrome 200, but I have seen a lot of it over the years through the display of slides shot on the stuff by my father.

    Kodachrome 200 does produce a pretty good level of apparent sharpness when projected through low/medium quality projector lenses. That impression, in my opinoin, is diminished when the slide is projected via a lens of very high quality.

    Is it possible that this was one of the design goals? Given that it was a high speed slide film for the times - was it optimized to give high relative apparent sharpness on "mainstream" lens systems?

    Perhaps Photo Engineer knows...

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Ron's comment about 1988 is apt, by then Fuji's 50D (and 100D) had really begun to eat into the Kodachrome market.

    The advantages were films which could be processed quickly, with superb colour rendition, tonality and sharpness. Unlike the US, which had a number of processing labs, in Europe Kodachrome processing was slow and most photographers needed the film processed within 24hrs.

    The other advantage of the new Fuji films was they were available in all formats.

    Since the release of 50D and 100D I've only used Fuji films E^ or C41 for my colour work.

    Having said that Kodachrome 25 slides do have that unique edge. If only the'd make LF Kodachrome again . . . I seem to remember seeing some by Weston or Adams at an exhibition a few years ago.

    Ian
    Ian;

    I looked into this a bit and found that it was E6 film in general that cut deeply into Kodachrome sales. AAMOF at that time, Fuji had only just begun selling an E6 film, and their first sale of it was pretty bad as it was incompatible with E6 to some extent. This was a headline cover article in 1990 in Darkroom Techniques.

    Fuji actually seems to have withdrawn it from the market for a time.

    In addition, an extremely inept, and to some offensive, series of ads by Fuji early on, turned public opinion against them. They were withdrawn with apologies, so there is no need to repeat them here.

    Kodachrome 200 was not designed for any particular lens. It was tested routinely with a series of Kodak Carousel projectors. We used to watch them in the screening room of B-59, on the first floor where they had a complete projection studio with many types of projectors and screens.

    PE

  5. #15
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    PE, I've always wondered and never seen it directly answered: is (was) K200 an high aspect ratio film?

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please define your understanding of "High Aspect Ratio".

    PE

  7. #17
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    Let's put it this way: did Kodak use the same emulsion technology used in the TMax family to make K200?

  8. #18
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,840
    Images
    29
    Kodachrome 200 was extremely good for push processing with a colour balance change, as David says.

    We had access to the Kodachrome processing by Kodak Australia. It was usual practice for us to test early am and have film back on a light box around lunch time.

    Motor vehicle advertisements using large format in which a fully loaded articulated truck (with a freezer container on the back for instance) could fit into our giant studio, were all done on Kodachrome pushed between 2 & 3 stops.

    Food shoots also used Kodachrome quite well with different light temperature sources used in one shot, for a look that was unusual to say the least, but it went over very well with the advertising companies.

    The demise of Kodachrome, was also helped along by the rise and rise of the Jobo developing systems being used inhouse, by commercial photographers.

    The Jobo ATL machines, really kick started inhouse E6 developing. This was fully supported by Kodak (at least in Australia) by the release of various E6 developing kits in various sizes from 2 1/2 litre through to 10 litre. These were perfect for one shot developing of Kodak's own E6 films.

    By 1990 or thereabouts, Kodachrome was on the wane. Not because it was a bad film, but the rise of E6 films and the diverse look that each film had, coupled with inhouse high quality E6 processing done at a far cheaper cost, won the day.

    Another nail in the coffin was a Kodak portable E6 processing van. This van which was present at major sporting events, really changed the landscape forever.

    Mick.

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,005
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Neanderman View Post
    Let's put it this way: did Kodak use the same emulsion technology used in the TMax family to make K200?
    The terminology then would be 'high aspect ratio emulsion'. Your usage would imply a thinner film.

    To answer both terms then, Kodachrome is the thinnest color film manufactured and the most difficult to manufacture due to its thinness.

    AFAIK, no t-grains were ever used in current Kodachrome films. The 400 speed Kodachrome and the rest of that generation which was never sold, did contain t-grains and had exceptional grain and sharpness.

    PE

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,916
    B&H now has KL-200 in stock, about 600 rolls.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin