Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,550   Posts: 1,544,694   Online: 876
      
Page 40 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3034353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 493
  1. #391
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,041
    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).
    Truzi

  2. #392
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890
    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.

  3. #393
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,899
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    What an utterly fascinating battle of wills going on here...



    Ken
    Shuffle over....got any beer?

    A very interesting thread on many levels

  4. #394

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.

  5. #395
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890
    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.

  6. #396
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,026
    Images
    65
    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?

    PE

  7. #397
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Well, Kodak had a cubitainer version
    Did it measure a cubit on each side?
    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.

  8. #398

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    928
    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.

  9. #399

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Allentown PA area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    343
    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.

    Any takers?

  10. #400

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    996
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzoomed View Post
    Kodak supplied Dwaynes with all the chemicals in their crystalline form, they did not have to synthesise the end product of course, but they had to prepare all the mixtures to the right dilution etc.
    Thats why a trained chemist was required to run the large scale K-14 machines, in addition to mixing them correctly, they needed to constantly monitor the chemicals and regularly replenish them.
    As far as im aware with the K-labs, the chemicals were already mixed to the correct strength and sealed in bags flushed with nitrogen, so that the mixed chemicals did not oxidise.
    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.

    Duncan



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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