Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
I never actually used Kodachrome, the results I saw were grainy with weird colours, and it was slow, and more expensive to process. 75 years ago, it was a brilliant idea, but, really, Kodachrome was on life support when I started shooting colour in 1978, there were other transparency films with better colour accuracy, finer grain, higher speed and easier processing even then, 34 years ago now.
No to most of that. It was rather slow, granted. But it wasn't remotely grainy, except the short lived 200 stuff. In fact it was so sharp that well into the 80s commercial shots and some stock agencies preferred either a 35mm Kodachrome or an 8x10 Ektachrome. Anything else wasn't as sharp. The colors were not subjectively weird, whatever the curves may look like. As I posted before, sometimes Caucasian flesh tones can be a bit pale, but overall the color is rich and vibrant. It does have its own look.

There's a fair amount of Kodachrome from my 2010 "farewell to Kodachrome" on my Flickr page. Some do look grainy, but those are on Kodachrome 200, which was also all well past expiration by then too. I bought it all off eBay all stores being out of it by the time I started buying it, and had no way to know how it had been stored before I got it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerco...7625927349242/