Kodachrome 64 Consumer and Kodachrome 64 Professional-What's the Difference?

I was looking through the latest B&H catalog when I came to the film

page. I recently started shooting slide film as it is best for my

preferred field (garden, macro, and landscape), and it is true that

Velvia 50 is king in those areas. But Velvia has terrible skin tones.

I have found that Kodachrome 64 provides a nice compromise though it

is a little more expensive and requires K-14 processing.

 

Some people say that Kodachrome is crap but I figure if it has been

around since the '30's it must have some good qualities to it (I do

know that it practically lasts forever.).

 

Anyways, I looked and saw that while consumer Kodachrome (KR) was

about $5.50 a roll, Professional Kodachrome (PKR) was about twice

that. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the difference

between PKR and KR is.

 

Also, can anyone tell me about Ektachrome 64?

 

Any responses would be appreciated.

 

-Andrew Pike

In fairly simple terms

 

Consumer film and pro film start life exactly the same - same base, same emulsions, same manufacturing and packaging lines at the manufacturing plant. The difference then comes from various effects of time on the film chemistry...

 

Consumer film is stored without refrigeration and tends to age � sometimes called �ripening�. The effect is that, at normal air temperatures and humidity, film "ripens" with time on a curve � first, new film will have a response to exposure that is not the ideal one; as time passes in un-refrigerated storage, or on a store display, or while being held in your camera bag, the response curve will pass (in terms of months) through the point of the ideal time for it's use and, ultimately, to the past-the-sell-by-date condition. There is no assurance that any two individual films, even from the same lot, will respond to light exactly the same way at the same time in their life cycle without highly controlled handling conditions - ever so slight variations can be noticed.

 

Pro film, on the other hand, is pre-ripened by holding it in storage before distribution and then refrigerated thereafter to hold it's peak conditioning. It is already considered to be "ripe" and at the peak of it's performance when it is sold to the photographer and any variations from individual film to individual film, and from manufaturing lot to manufacturing lot are minimised.

 

It is the handling and storage conditions dictated by and for pro users that cause the difference in price - a difference that is intended to reflect the time it is held for "ripening" before distribution, the higher assured image quality and uniformity across the production batch, as well as from batch to batch, that the use of pro film implies.

Great info from Dai Hunter: I've learned a lot!

 

About Kodachrome: as for my experience, the last Kodachrome I have exposed dates back to 20 years ago. There was no KR or PKR moniker on the boxes and the quality was superb. You would give back the roll in a yellow bag and the developing was included in the price and taken care of - I think - by Kodak themselves. These transparencies have mantained their original colors through the years as opposed, say, to Agfachromes (the worst ones). I also shot a few Ektachromes 64 with fairly good results and color stability.

I think Dai answered the first part of your question quite well. As far as Ektachrome 64 (EPR) is concerned: it is similar to Kodachrome 64 in terms of graininess, but that is where the similarity ends. EPR isn't quite as sharp-looking as KR and it has a different color palette. EPR tends to be more neutral, whereas KR is a bit green if it's fresh, or a bit red if it's outdated. EPR can be slightly blue if it's outdated. EPR has slightly lower contrast, but slightly higher saturation, compared to KR. It is an interesting film. Personally I think it's way overpriced for such an old-fashioned film, but some people like it. I occasionally find it in the bargain bin at the local camera store when it goes out of date. In that case, I don't hesitate to grab a few rolls.

I'm afraid that Dai has it wrong.

 

No consumer or professional product manufactured by EK have the same formula.

 

I keep running into this urban 'myth' over and over and over. It is simply NOT true.

 

The films are manufactured to entirely different aims for Latent Image Keeping, curve shape, and Raw Stock Keeping. (LIK and RSK in the trade). Professional films are expected to be kept refrigerated and to be processed quickly after exposure, therefore the addenda are not exactly the same. The consumer film is optimized for raw stock keeping before exposure, and for good LIK after exposure.

 

The curves and interimage effects (color reproduction) are adjusted differently as well.

 

Kodak does not cross package products in the manner described above!

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland wrote:

 

"No consumer or professional product manufactured by EK have the same formula."

 

I certainly respect what you're saying, Rowland. However, a couple years ago I sent an e-mail to Kodak tech support, specifically asking if there were any differences between Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 Professional, and Kodachrome 200 and Kodachrome 200 Professional. The tech support representative who replied to my query stated, almost verbatim, what Dai wrote.

 

It might be a myth, but in at least one instance that I am personally aware of, it is a myth perpetuated by an actual Kodak employee.

As far as what causes the difference there is disagreement; however, most would agree the original explination is accurate in terms of what you will notice. Film ripening, etc.

 

I find that if I buy my KR and KL in quantity from a reputible dealer, age it for a month sitting on a shelf, and then refrigerate it, it stays fairly consistant, and works for me, Your milage may vary.

 

SOme will tell you Kodachrome is garbage, some will tell you it is the only film worth shooting. Both are wrong as it is entirely subjective,

 

I'd buy some KR and shoot it. IF you like it try some PKR and see if there is a difference you notice, and care about. Personally I find no important difference between KR and PKR and only a slight one in KL and PKL. (Not enough to juistify the cost of PKL IMHO)

 

Just give it a try and see.

I bought 50 rolls of Kodachrome KR 64 fresh from B&H recently that was still appx. "7CC" too green.

 

A&I and Dwayne's did processing. Still "7CC" too green.

PS, the Kodachrome looked much, much better after using a 10CC magenta filter in front of lens.

To R. T. Dowling, and others;

 

I cannot respond to the answer from the tech rep. Perhaps you misunderstood. Of course, the films are kept differently, but that reflects the way they are made. Also they are somewhat similar and might even seem identical to a layperson.

 

I have personally coated and tested consumer and professional products in the course of my job at KRL. The formulas and aims were different. What more can I say as the engineer that made the coatings?

 

The emulsions that I took from the cold store were the same, the support I ordered out was the same (but this is NOT always true - some professional films use a different support), the couplers and dispersions were usually but not always the same, the addenda were either different or were present in different amounts, and manner of addition was often different, and in some cases the spectral sensitizing dyes were different. The after coating treatments were different as were the exposures. The target customers were different, and the processes were identical!

 

The only products that I know of that were 'identical' were a Gold 200 and a Gold 100 of about 20 years ago or so. It seems that the 200 speed film exceeded its aims for grain, and therefore equalled a 100 speed film, and so the 200 film had a 0.3 neutral density dye added to the fomula to make an exceedingly sharp 100 speed film. Even here, you can see that for all practical purposes, the formulas were different by one ingredient.

 

Cross packaging is not practiced by Eastman Kodak.

 

Ron Mowrey

I just use plain old Kodachrome 64. I live in Florida and by the time the film gets here from NY (B&H) it seems to be "cooked" just right. I put it in the freezer.

 

I just got back 6 rolls of K64 from my cruise last week to Mexico and they look wonderful. But I've been a Kodachrome guy since 1976.

 

Years ago I shot both K64 reg and K64 Pro. I didn't see any difference in the projected slides. Now I didn't shoot color charts so if the films were a bit green I didn't notice. Skin tones were the same.

 

I also did the same test with 120 E64 and E64 pro. The pro film did look better as the regular E64 was a bit blue which I could see.

 

The regular E64 film was short dated; other regular E64 has looked fine.

 

I have found it easy for me & my wife to use just two color fims. We use K64 and Fuji Provira 400. Seems to cover the bases. YMMV.

Make of it what you will...

 

Kodak FAQ0059

 

Amateur vs Professional Film /

What is the difference between professional films and films for general picture-taking?

 

Kodak makes different types of films because different types of photographers have varying needs and working habits. Professional photographers tend to buy large amounts of film at once. They usually expose and process the film within a relatively short time after purchase. Casual picture-takers usually buy one or two rolls of film at a time. A roll of film may remain in the camera at room temperature for several weeks or even months before processing.

 

As films age, their color balance and other characteristics change slightly. Therefore, Kodak allows for this aging process during manufacture. Because professionals need to know that a particular film is near its optimum color balance and speed when they are ready to use it, Kodak professional films are close to optimum color balance when they are manufactured and packaged. The film will remain near this balance if it's stored as recommended. With films for general picture-taking, Kodak builds a small manufacturing bias into the emulsions to allow for changes that are likely to occur during typical storage and delays between purchase and processing.

 

AND IN MORE DETAIL

 

KODAK Color Films: The Differences Between Professional Films and Films for General Picture-Taking

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e6/e6.pdf

Did you see that comment "BUILDS A SMALL MANUFACTURING BIAS INTO ...".

 

That encompasses a lot of changes in the film. That reference alone says categorically that the films are different.

 

Thanks for the supporting argument.

 

Ron Mowrey

Ron Mowrey seems to have the definitive information here.

I'm sitting here deciding what to say next. I can't say much for obvious reasons, but I point out that the professional films are more easily pushed. That is in the reference that was posted above.

 

I should point out that the method of enhancing the pushability of professional products is not a simple matter of hand waving. It is a structured methodology of emulsion and film building.

 

Suffice it to say, professional and commercial films are totally different in formulation even if they use the same support, emulsions, and coupler. The referenced PDF file supports this in laymans language.

 

Ron Mowrey

Thanks for all of the answers. About this whole dispute between ripening and different chemicals and such being added, had any of you thought it may be a combination of both? The .pdf file I read at the Kodak web site (Thank you Mr. Hunter) seemed to support both arguments. i.e. "As films age, their color balance and other characteristics change gradually. Therefore, Kodak allows for this aging process during manufacture." Then it goes on to say how professionals need consistancy and quality in their films, etc. On the other hand, it also states that "Kodak builds a small manufacturing bias into the emulsions...".

 

Based upon this, I think it is safe to say that both answers are basically true.

 

Again, thanks for all the answers.

 

-Andrew Pike

Okay, so call me the pragmatist, but who really cares what chemicals Kodak puts in there. The more relevant question is what are the apparent differences. Can you really tell that these films are any different? At their peaks, do they both perform the same? Enough of the pedantry, honestly.

Raymond;

 

The question is "are consumer and profesional films the same"? The answer is "No, but they are similar".

 

Do they behave the same? The answer is "Yes for some properties and No for others".

 

There, entirely unpedantic and untechnical and, probably unhelpful as well.

 

But it sounds like the kind of answers you want.

 

Ron Mowrey

OK. All I really want know is if there is a difference in graininess, color saturation, or things that the viewer can actually see. I am not particularly interested in all the chemical gobbildy goop that has been surfacing here. All I want to know is what the viewable differeces are and if the professional version is worth the price.

 

Thank you.

 

-Andrew Pike

Andrew;

 

Yes, you will see differences between the commercial and professional versions of these films and others.

 

Is it worth the price? IDK. You are the only one that can answer that one. I have seen pros swear by the consumer films and vice versa. My practical advice is buy a roll of each and shoot identical pictures. My hunch is, you will decide that the professional product is probably not worth the price for what you do. A very dedicated pro earning his living from the trade would probably decide otherwise but I've seen it go either way depending on assignment.

 

I know it isn't a very good answer, but photography is rather subjective. I don't like Kodachrome. It is an 'old' film dating from the 80s, has high contrast IMHO, and does not reproduce some colors very well. Some modern films do much better.

 

OTOH, Kodachrome has outstanding dye stability and sharpness.

 

Most professionals shoot enough film to develop a feel or mood of a given film and use that film to match the scene. I have seen them shoot Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Fujichrome, and a variety of color neg films on one assignment. The individual scene determined the film. They use consumer films and professional films depending on scene as well.

 

For example, if they need pushability above all else, they always use professional films as they push better. EK (and Fuji, I expect) designed them that way. If pushability is a requirement for you, then the pro film is worth the price to you.

 

Pro films intended for portrature or 'people pictures' often have a different curve shape than commercial films.

 

I used the pedantry and chemistry to get try to get rid of the myth that the two types of film were identical. Sometimes you have to use a 'heavy' tool to get someones attention. Sorry for that.

 

Enjoy photography. Warmest regards.

 

Ron Mowrey