Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

[wblynch]

One could most easily ignore the threads....

[Sal Santamaura]

Those are very interesting curves. Thanks for the information.

It goes to show that accurate isn't always preferred by everyone.

Didn't need the curves to show that. Velvia's broad success is a more graphic demonstration.

[Photo Engineer]

Sal, you could not be more correct! That is why Fuji had the E6 market cornered.

Bill, when you are trying to help someone with information, you don't ignore them. OTOH, you have to tell them that enough is enough.

PE

[Roger Cole]

Ken;

There are 3 or 4 active "Kodachrome is dead, the sky is falling" threads active right now. A fair percentage of my mail is about "what can you do about Kodachrome" and what I can do or want to do is zip! To me, to some extent, these threads are an annoyance. Now, if someone is faced with the best photomaterial in the world, and has never used it, well, how can they complain now when it is gone? They were part of the problem!

I laugh but there is some truth to the bizarre proposal to chain me in a barn and have me process Kodachrome, or build the equipment to coat it. Some people think I can or would do something if the price was right.

Perhaps you see where I am coming from? I wish all of these threads were closed.

PE

I can understand annoyance with the mail. If I were you I'd compose a standard reply that said politely but tersely "not a damned thing I can do, it's gone, get over it and use the E6 films you prefer if you don't want to lose them too" or something to that effect and just paste it into each one of them.

The threads are a different matter. You can ignore them easily with the ignore thread feature. It comes across like the fact you're tired of hearing something means you think no one else should be allowed to talk about it. I'm in agreement with Ken. I don't think threads should ever be closed on any forum just because one poster, no matter how knowledgeable and helpful in the general topic, finds the subject annoying to the point of being a pet peeve, even though the subject is also on topic. I've ignored plenty of threads. On another forum I'm on I have (I just counted) 198 threads on ignore, yet I participate there almost daily. Granted, that list goes back to 2008 and many of them could not doubt safely be taken off ignore now.

[Roger Cole]

Oh and Velvia - curves or not, if there's one film I think takes "very inaccurate but people like the inaccurate look" to an extreme far beyond Kodachrome, it's Velvia. I'm not talking about how well curves match, just the level of saturation. Not many people claim it looks realistic, but people seem to love it. I'm not one of them, finding it exaggerated and garish most of the time, though I do like it for subjects that need a color pop shot in dull lighting.

Kodachrome has a realistic look to me even if I can identify where the color isn't accurate. That's hard to explain but easy to see. There's something about it that looks very "real" somehow.

[Photo Engineer]

Roger, please read the second paragraph of my post 223. That is why I cannot ignore these threads. I have had requests from students trying to piece together a history of Kodachrome, others want to replicate just one color image for a science experiment and etc. How can I ignore this. I said in the post you quote that I want and can do zip. That is not really correct. I can give out information and guide people to sources for more information.

PE

[Klainmeister]

Oh and Velvia - curves or not, if there's one film I think takes "very inaccurate but people like the inaccurate look" to an extreme far beyond Kodachrome, it's Velvia. I'm not talking about how well curves match, just the level of saturation. Not many people claim it looks realistic, but people seem to love it. I'm not one of them, finding it exaggerated and garish most of the time, though I do like it for subjects that need a color pop shot in dull lighting.

Kodachrome has a realistic look to me even if I can identify where the color isn't accurate. That's hard to explain but easy to see. There's something about it that looks very "real" somehow.

Probably a result of being an American and us seeing Kodachrome films and pictures constantly up until more recently. That is real to our perceptions.

Funny, I hear that about Velvia all the time too, and I understand it, but frankly when I am out shooting in Canyonlands, Velvia is the only one that actually does catch the vibrancy. Most other films I use don't get close.

[Roger Cole]

Roger, please read the second paragraph of my post 223. That is why I cannot ignore these threads. I have had requests from students trying to piece together a history of Kodachrome, others want to replicate just one color image for a science experiment and etc. How can I ignore this. I said in the post you quote that I want and can do zip. That is not really correct. I can give out information and guide people to sources for more information.

PE

Well you still could, you just choose not to do so. That's commendable, but how could you help those people if the threads were closed? Exact same result as if you ignored them. So you say you can't do it one way, but can do it if the mods do it for you. If you are really tired of answering questions and giving out information about Kodachrome, just stop doing it. You have no obligation to do so nor to get the mods to do it for you.

Honestly, we all appreciate all you do here, but you don't have to do everything (or anything) that you don't find fulfilling or don't want to do, just because you CAN. I've been told more than once I'm too nice for my own good. I think I can pass that comment on now.

[Roger Cole]

Probably a result of being an American and us seeing Kodachrome films and pictures constantly up until more recently. That is real to our perceptions.

Funny, I hear that about Velvia all the time too, and I understand it, but frankly when I am out shooting in Canyonlands, Velvia is the only one that actually does catch the vibrancy. Most other films I use don't get close.

Well...maybe that's a factor of how colorful our surroundings are. It doesn't look like any reality *I* know, but I've never been out there. Well, it can - as I said, on an overcast day with a subject that should have bright color, it can make it look more like it would look on a sunnier day. But using it in already vibrant light seems to be overdone. My luke warm reaction to it also comes in part from the fact I've always found it difficult to shoot well. It has (or seems to have - I've not measured it just shot it) a range even narrower than other E6 films. I do a bit better with E100VS (alas) but would only use it in similar circumstances.

[Klainmeister]

Well...maybe that's a factor of how colorful our surroundings are. It doesn't look like any reality *I* know, but I've never been out there. Well, it can - as I said, on an overcast day with a subject that should have bright color, it can make it look more like it would look on a sunnier day. But using it in already vibrant light seems to be overdone. My luke warm reaction to it also comes in part from the fact I've always found it difficult to shoot well. It has (or seems to have - I've not measured it just shot it) a range even narrower than other E6 films. I do a bit better with E100VS (alas) but would only use it in similar circumstances.

I know that when I used it in the PNW I thought it was garrish, but down here, it seems to fit the red landscape better. Maybe my desires have changed. It is extremely narrow, so its good to bracket.



OK back to Kodachrome