Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,419   Online: 841
      
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 122

Thread: Kodachrome

  1. #11
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    I just got back a roll of Kodachrome 25 I shot at the Japanese Festival on Labor Day. I took several shots parallel with a roll of Kodak EIR. Just to see the difference and record the actual colors of the subject vs. the false colors of the EIR.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  2. #12
    Bromo33333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    669
    I know a lot of folks really like Kodachrome - and some say it is the best film out there. Having never shot it - Only Ektachrome (E100V) - what is the advantage of Kodachrome? I heard somewhere it really brings out the skin tones and shows reds really well? ? ?

    Interesting thread - I would like a little perspective on the subject.
    B & D
    Rochester, NY
    ========================
    Quiquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur

  3. #13
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Kodachrome is(or was) a great film, but it is not the where with all to photographic startdom! It was just another tool that photographers used to achieve a certain result, there has been so many good films in the past and still currently, I don't quite understand Why people don't branch out and look at other alternatives, most any film that has been produced in the last 65 years have been good, the skill comes in knowing how to use it!

    Dave

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,344
    Images
    84
    I love the classic Kodachrome look as seen in the work of Helen Levitt & National Geograpic photographer William Allard.
    Soft, muted, gentle colour.
    I much prefer it to the saturated colour & sharpness of most modern films.

    It does seem however that the current version of Kodachrome is different to the classic formula. Not just in the lack of a 25 ISO but also in the formulation.

    Funnily enough I have noticed a trend recently away from saturated hyped up colour & back to a more muted look. I see this in TV commercials, feature films & general still photography, both commercial & artistic. A lot of this is being done digitally, using the desaturate option in photoshop, but it is interesting to observe.

    I would like to shoot some Kodachrome again but it's a headache living in Australia. You can't buy it here anymore so I would need to have it shipped from USA, then post it back after exposure & then have it posted back to me. So that's 3 sets of postage to be paid.

  5. #15
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromo33333 View Post
    ... what is the advantage of Kodachrome? I heard somewhere it really brings out the skin tones and shows reds really well? ? ?

    Interesting thread - I would like a little perspective on the subject.
    I'm having a final fling with Kodachrome. I have 3 more rolls of 64 left, and probably will not get any more.

    Back when I first used Kodachrome (I think the vintage was Kodachrome II 25) it was regarded as having the "nice bright colors" as the song said. This was long before the enhanced saturation films and the "Fuji blue" sky.

    While muted by today's standard, yes, it reproduced skin, reds, any warmer shade, autumn foliage, etc., quite well.

    Ektachrome, on the other hand, was kind of a "cooler" film, more grainy, and less sharp than Kodachrome. The Ektachrome colors of that vintage had just a bit more "pop" than Kodachrome, and the soon to be extinct Walgreens/Agfa 200 reminds me of the look and feel of the Ektachrome of the early 70's era.

    Back then I shot a lot of slide film because I wanted color but I could not afford to get roll after roll printed only to throw 70% of them away. I could inspect them with a magnifier or projector and have the ones I liked printed.

    Kodachrome of that era was most definitely sharper than Ektachrome, and to me the current Kodachrome 64 appears sharper than Velvia 100.

    I've accepted the fact that Kodachrome has only a few years left. I would love for some company to buy the rights to it and make it, but that would be a poor investment. Just taking a trip to the real world here.

    I can imagine the day that Big Yellow announces its end. All the talking heads playing the song and reading inaccurate copy about what Kodachrome was. I get nauseous just thinking of it.

    Oh well -- so it goes ...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Parker View Post
    As far as I am concerned, when they discontinued ISO 25 Kodachrome, it was extinct, I did extensive testing with both 64 and 200 and I am sorry, I just never got the same results, when the 25 died, the music died!

    I feel the same way about the Velvia 50, I don't like the 100 versions even close to the 50, that is why I stocked over 400 rolls of the 50 when I heard what was going on, even if the E6 processing goes away, I can easily do this in my sidekick processor..

    But I am testing some others now...

    LOL

    :rolleyes:

    Dave
    Dave,
    In all honesty, I felt Kodachrome went extinct when "Big K on the yellow box" discontinued Kodachrome II. Not even 25 had the "zip" II did. Lucky for me I had several bricks of K-II in my refrig well into the Kodachrome 25 era. As for why Kodachrome? I have Kodachromes my Dad shot in the late 30's and early 40's and they still look fantastic. Then there are the Ektachrome from the 60's that are totally gone. Besides the look of a Kodachrome the long term storage in my opinion is a huge advantage of Kodachrome.

    Walker

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Near Tavistock, Devon, on the edge of Dartmoor.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoHistorian View Post
    Dave,
    As for why Kodachrome? I have Kodachromes my Dad shot in the late 30's and early 40's and they still look fantastic. Then there are the Ektachrome from the 60's that are totally gone. Besides the look of a Kodachrome the long term storage in my opinion is a huge advantage of Kodachrome.

    Walker
    What he said!
    As long as the fungus doesn't get them (more of a problem in the earlier cardboard mounts) my 30+ year old Kodachrome slides seem set to outlast much more recent material of other types/processes (not that I have many of those).
    My one proviso about Kodachrome II/25 is that if you went out on a gloomy day the film really showed it. Often a problem in SW England.

    Steve

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    The old arguments for buying Kodachrome were:

    Better colour
    Finer grain
    Higher sharpness
    Greater longevity when processed
    Greater longevity/toughness before processing (no dye precursors in the emulsion)

    In my own view -- I started shooting Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X (the latter was a really nasty film) in 1966, and my late father-in-law shot original Kodachrome from the 1940s onwards -- most or all of these advantages have been eroded over the years, several to the point of non-existence. Of course we don't know about longevity after processing but I am prepared to believe the manufacturers' claims of multi-decade life. I've not bought Kodachrome in maybe a decade. When it goes, I'll be sorry, but only for nostalgia's sake, as I don't actually use the stuff.

    My own favourite of all time was Fuji RF/RFP ISO 50, which was dropped when Fuji brought out the vile, slow, garish, magenta-tinted original Velvia 50: I will never understand why that film has so many devotees.

    Which only goes to show that colour quality is a matter of opinion anyway, and that styles change. Today I shoot almost exclusively Kodak Elite Chrome 100 Extra Color, which gives me a very different look from my 1960s to 1980s Kodachromes, 1970s Ektachromes (best forgotten, but then, they've faded badly anyway), 1980s Agfachromes and 1990s Fujichromes.

    Cheers,

    Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- with decades of colour in it...)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,400
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    The old arguments for buying Kodachrome were:

    Better colour
    Finer grain
    Higher sharpness
    Greater longevity when processed
    Greater longevity/toughness before processing (no dye precursors in the emulsion)

    In my own view -- I started shooting Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X (the latter was a really nasty film) in 1966, and my late father-in-law shot original Kodachrome from the 1940s onwards -- most or all of these advantages have been eroded over the years, several to the point of non-existence. Of course we don't know about longevity after processing but I am prepared to believe the manufacturers' claims of multi-decade life. I've not bought Kodachrome in maybe a decade. When it goes, I'll be sorry, but only for nostalgia's sake, as I don't actually use the stuff.

    My own favourite of all time was Fuji RF/RFP ISO 50, which was dropped when Fuji brought out the vile, slow, garish, magenta-tinted original Velvia 50: I will never understand why that film has so many devotees.

    Which only goes to show that colour quality is a matter of opinion anyway, and that styles change. Today I shoot almost exclusively Kodak Elite Chrome 100 Extra Color, which gives me a very different look from my 1960s to 1980s Kodachromes, 1970s Ektachromes (best forgotten, but then, they've faded badly anyway), 1980s Agfachromes and 1990s Fujichromes.

    Cheers,

    Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- with decades of colour in it...)
    I liked the old Fujichrome 50 too. Fuji Astia is OK too, but I prefer Kodak E100G for skin tones. As you say, it all comes down to personal preferences.

  10. #20
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr View Post
    I'm having a final fling with Kodachrome. I have 3 more rolls of 64 left, and probably will not get any more.

    Back when I first used Kodachrome (I think the vintage was Kodachrome II 25) it was regarded as having the "nice bright colors" as the song said. This was long before the enhanced saturation films and the "Fuji blue" sky.

    While muted by today's standard, yes, it reproduced skin, reds, any warmer shade, autumn foliage, etc., quite well.

    Ektachrome, on the other hand, was kind of a "cooler" film, more grainy, and less sharp than Kodachrome. The Ektachrome colors of that vintage had just a bit more "pop" than Kodachrome, and the soon to be extinct Walgreens/Agfa 200 reminds me of the look and feel of the Ektachrome of the early 70's era.

    Back then I shot a lot of slide film because I wanted color but I could not afford to get roll after roll printed only to throw 70% of them away. I could inspect them with a magnifier or projector and have the ones I liked printed.

    Kodachrome of that era was most definitely sharper than Ektachrome, and to me the current Kodachrome 64 appears sharper than Velvia 100.

    I've accepted the fact that Kodachrome has only a few years left. I would love for some company to buy the rights to it and make it, but that would be a poor investment. Just taking a trip to the real world here.

    I can imagine the day that Big Yellow announces its end. All the talking heads playing the song and reading inaccurate copy about what Kodachrome was. I get nauseous just thinking of it.

    Oh well -- so it goes ...
    What she said - because she said it all!

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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