A less expensive way to get a decent print from Kodachrome is to make an internegative. The lab I used for this has since passed away, though, and I think Kodak stopped making the film for this. The best prints from Kodachrome are dye transfer, but that's dead too. Ilfochromes are good, but pricey. There is (was?) a color reversal paper for making prints directly from slides, but the colors were never right.
Hmmm. Can't get their from here, analog wise.
When I need a print from Kodachrome I scan it in an old HP PhotoSmart scanner. Many modern high end scanners can't scan Kodachrome as they expect the film to be transparent to IR, which Kodachrome isn't. A good drum scanner won't have this problem.
I've personally scanned kodachromes on an Imacon scanner, and I had no trouble. TBH, I haven't scanned them on any other scanners, but after having some drum scans done, and scanning them myself on the Imacon, the drum scans are cleaner, offer better color reproduction before post production in PS (this is really a topic for hybridphoto.com, APUG's sister site). grain is less apparent as well, especially in the shadows. also, the resolution available off of a drum scan is considerably higher than that off a flatbed scanner. I will stop this digital talk now, go to www.hybridphoto.com and look in the forums there, you'll most likely get the answers you need
best of luck to you though
Yep, Kodak stopped making interneg film; they also recently recommended Portra NC 160 as a substitute for this use.
And no Wolfeye, I never said that you can't still get a decent print from Ilfochrome. I used to do so, routinely. But the process is not without a measure of pain . Roughly 1/3 of my Kodachromes never needed a mask, 1/3 required a custom contrast mask of varying strength (Pan Masking Film is also no longer being made), and 1/3 never would print on Ilfochrome to my satisfaction.
Ilfochrome is simply a process I no longer chose to do, the decision being as much due to the difficulty and expense of acquiring the materials as it was due to superior processes becoming readily available.
Thanks for all the replies!
I went back to a scan of one of them and after much tweaking, have something I think is almost printable. It's hard to judge.
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
Try sending them off to Dale Labs (www.dalelabs.com) and they will certainly strive to get you what you are looking for. If you really want the best quality that is ever possible, try having some Ilfochromes made. Visual-Imaging does very good work http://www.visual-imaging.com/
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Given the fact that, unless you DIY, virtually NOBODY is makes optical prints from negatives, C41 film holds no real advantage over slide film if you want prints (unless you just prefer the look of C41, but Astia pretty much looks and acts like C41). If you like slides, keep in mind that slide film does a better job at making prints than C41 does at making slides.
Originally Posted by Pupfish
I have used Duggal in NYC, Elevator in Toronto, Gamma in Chicago and A&I in Los Angeles and all of them did a great job for me.
Originally Posted by Wolfeye
I'd recommend Duggal and Elevator only because they have a Lambda or Light Jet and the print is therefore chemical/wet process, not an inkjet.
Also check out the APUG Hybrid Social Group before this thread closed down by the moderators: http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/hy...oto-group.html.
My primary objective is to make prints and C41 is (obviously) my choice. Let me tell you some facts...
Originally Posted by StorminMatt
1. C41 is more tolerant when it comes to sloppy metering. Just because it is scanned, it doesn't mean that the exposure latitude isn't an asset.
2. Why pay more for an E6 film if I don't want to project? There are (and there will be) many C41 films that do the job nicely. And why pay more for E6 processing either?
3. Check the availability of E6 labs. Not many left and you don't have the added bonus of C41's fast processing. You don't need to wait for days.
My preference is for transparencies, let me tell you some counter-facts.
Originally Posted by Anon Ymous
1. Transparencies force you to take better colour images. Maybe not in my case, but in general.
2, Why not? Why do you care what I or other transparency photographers pay?
3. So what? E-6 processing is three hours or less in all the places I have mentioned and others, so I don't know what you mean by days.
Anyway, I really shouldn't debate with you, but let's not expedite the slaying of another set of film photography, k? Shoot what ever film you want but don't set about the demise of what other film photographers want to shoot. Digital is already doing that for all of us. We should be supporting each other.
Wow there Art, it wasn't meant to be a heated debate. I'm just saying that there are advantages, nothing more, nothing less. And for the record...
1. Yep, slides force you to do your best, but what if your gear isn't up to the task?
2. I don't care about what you pay for slides. I'm just saying that if prints are what you want E6 offers no real advantage IMHO. Unless of course if you just love the color palette of a specific slide film.
3. I'm glad that you have that option, but that's not the case for most places in the world. The ever dwindling amount of E6 labs worldwide is a negative sign I'm afraid.
Finally, if slides survive or not depends on their usefulness, not on what a guy (me) posts at a forum.