Although we have a lot of old family slides, I've never had the opportunity to use Kodachrome myself.
I have never really felt the urge to seek out information on Kodachrome, but do find this thread interesting, so have followed along. In the process I've learned more than I would have sought otherwise, so I do find some value in this thread. How the process was accomplished is very interesting (and seems a bit insane).
It WAS a cool film. While there were problems with color accuracy (see my comments above and Ron's confirmation about Caucasian skin tones for example) overall it looked rich and vibrant and had a look that is hard to explain but easy to see. I can just about always identify a projected Kodachrome amongst a show of other slide types. Nothing else looks quite like it. And in the days before E6 and the improvements in it, nothing else looked quite as good either.
Shuffle over....got any beer?
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
A very interesting thread on many levels
The biggest difference with Kodachrome was the Reds IMO, i cant really see much difference at all between e100g and K64, but im not an experienced photographer.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
From what ive seen from sample shots, Fuji provia seems to be rather close to kodachrome, although it does not have very dark shadows compared to kodachrome.
I actually prefer the look of vintage kodachrome, although it was darker, i liked the effect that the original kodachrome gave compared to Kodachrome II or the more modern K-14 kodachrome.
The reds really pop, that's very true.
I have some Kodachrome from my year of "farewell to Kodachrome" on my Flickr page but they're from the scans returned straight from Dwayne's so not the best Kodachrome could be by any means. Some are also on K200 which was rather grainy for a 200 film. Most are K64 though. I don't think I ever shot a roll of K25. That's just too darned slow.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well, Kodak had a cubitainer version of K14 chemistry that they sold for processing. A chemist was used in the lab to run controls, analyses and make corrections. IDK if they mixed anything. At one time only MP labs mixed from scratch and they didn't like mixing Kodachrome solutions. Just too hard.
So, if you think that they mixed from scratch, are you sure?
Did it measure a cubit on each side?
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
As no more Kodachrome film will be produced, yet we still have a supply of E6 products, would it be much more practical to quantify precisely differences in appearance between the different Kodachromes and some current E6 materials?
If this can be done successfully and completely, by someone with the necessary densitometer (etc.) and brainpower, then perhaps we can come up with a way to reproduce the look of Kodachrome. Now that very few people are giving slideshows, I mean reproducing the look on paper, and in turn this means on RA4 paper not a pos-pos paper.
Assuming that an inter-neg is used, there would be two possible points at which the results could be filtered in some way. Of course, reversal of RA4 paper is possible, but probably(?) not applicable for the results required. Besides filtration, would there be options to modify the chemicals and/or processing of the interneg and/or the RA4 paper in order to adjust the results from 'standard', if required.
As the old style dupe interneg materials are no longer made(?), what would be the most effective C41 material, and why? What would be the most appropriate RA4 paper, and why?
If anyone really wants to achieve a Kodachrome appearance in their finished work (I do not), I think efforts in the direction of imitation rather than recreation would be a more effective use of time and other resources - especially as there is no un-expired Kodachrome material in existence.
I really liked the post about the developing process. All I was reading before is that it was too complicated, why? Now after reading the post about the K-14 process...WOW...
The different baths, bleaches, then shining colored lights on the film, yes, I can see where Mr. Frizza can say that $250 a roll might be necessary. That's a lot more than I can afford for my one roll that I would like to get developed that I found in my now deceased father-in-law's car though. It's been suggested that it be developed as black and white, and I would be willing, but I'm not comfortable with my skill set yet for something that important to me.
At work, we have a DVD of the Tacoma Bridge Collapse that was shot on Kodachrome. I wonder if today's E-6/ECN-2/C-41 stuff will look as good 75(ish) years from now...
Speaking of work, yesterday I was talking to one of our volunteers, who happens to be an organic chemist graduate student, and she expressed an interest in the chemistry/process involved. Let me nip the "It's on the kodak website" in the bud right now. I would like to just be able to give her as few links as possible, or someone she can talk to who isn't going to judge or belittle her for being interested. She's a film photography enthusiast and a friend of mine.
This makes sense if Dwayne's had a Kodachrome processor capable of running movie film, instead of a K-lab (which I believe only ran 35mm in still camera lengths?) And it would make sense that Dwayne's would have a processor capable of running move film, because there was a lot of it about at one point, in the consumer sizes.
Originally Posted by Nzoomed