clean Kodachrome facility?

I just got my first role of Kodachrome (64) back, and must say I was

very impressed with the beautiful colors. Accurate, is the best way

for me to describe them. Not color boosted (which can be an advantage)

, just accurate. What I saw is what I got.

But what I also got was a LOT of dust on my slides. I think the store

I used (Meijers in Michigan) sent them to Kodak Fairlawn. Must be a

dirty obsolete old factory that they have not updated in ages, by the

looks of my film. If this is their quality level, then I am glad they

are closing. Just save the equipment for others with more care to use.

Has anyone used Dwaynes? Are their slides cleaner?

I have had Kodachrome processed by Dwayne's (via Walmart which is dirt cheap at lesss than $5) The slieds were cleaner. I've also had both clean and dirty slides from Kodak. It will cease to be an issue soon, as Kodak is closing the facility. Try dropping your enxt rol of at Walmart. It's about a two week turnaround.

Was that Kodachrome professional version you used? You didn't have any green or magenta shift from the film itself? Just curious because you are happy with colors. I have 02/2005 amatuer KR 64 film that had a good 5 to 10 CC green shift. By now, it's probably only 05CC green shift.

 

PS, I second the suggestion to use Dwaynes.

Andre, I used to live in Michigan, the sun gets to maybe 60 degrees from the horizon at noon of the summer equinox, the rest of the time it's 40-45 degrees at mid day, so K64 might make things look like they are: dingy. Shoot K64 on a sunny day in Florida or Texas and you'll see the faded color and excessive contrast that are its hallmarks.

K200 Shot in the miodday sun, in Texas, of my son sittingin a sandbox.

Just a snapshot, and a straight scan.

 

Faded colour?

Re <i>excessive contrast that are its hallmarks.</i><BR><BR>Kodachrome 64 is the "newer" K-14 process 64 asa/iso film; that morphed from the old 1960's and early 1970's Kodachrome-X; a asa 64 K-12 process slide film.<BR><BR>The old Kodachrome-X was sometimes known as the "Instamatic" slide film in the 1960's. Its high contrast helped with the cheap low end starter Instamatic clones; with uncoated lenses.<BR><BR> In 1963; Kodachrome-X was placed in the Kodapak/Instamatic cartridge. They had four different asa 64 products; Vericrome Pan; Kodachrome-X; and the new Ektachrome-X; and Kodacolor-X. Most of the Kodak starter cameras had 43mm F11 coated lenses; but were often used dirty; ie no lenscaps! At the introduction of the Kodapak; there was two asa's in the ID notch; one for asa 64; one for 160. The second notch really was not probably used.<BR><BR> Later on the Verichrome Pan became asa 125 in the Kodapak/Instamatic line; it was asa 64 when the instamatic was launched about 1963. ,BR><BR>The Kodachrome slides I shot in the 1960's were most all Kodachrome II; Kodachrome A; and not much Kodachrome-X. I found the "X" version to be contrastly; and more grainy. It is interesting how the "to be avoided" instamatic Kodachrome became a loved Kodachrome 64; decades later.

1) Sorry for your dyslexia but I clearly said K64 not K200. K200 has nice color, just obnoxious grain in comparison to today's ISO 400 slide film which is of course a stop faster.

 

2)Internet uploads, which have obviously been scanned, probably been Photoshopped, and definitely are displayed on all sorts of monitors, prove *nothing* about colors.

It is true that scans are not true representations of the slide itself...but others offer up scans as proof that their slide films are much better than K64 or K200, so why not Kodachrome users? K64 can be dull if shot in certain conditions, but i've found if used in the early morning or later evening light, or in the shade with fill flash, the slides can be very beautiful. K200 is a bit more rosy and robust in color, I just wish we could combine K200's color palatte with the grain of K64! The scan above is pretty accurate for K200's color palatte.

Jay.

 

1. You did indeed specify K64. This will teach me to go through the forum too fast.

1a. Wow dyslexia. An argument a whole generation advanced from calling someone a retard. I made a mistake, does that call for incivility?

 

2. One the scan has not been photoshoped. I specifically said straight scan. If you want more info it was made using an epson 1660 Photo, and the built in Epson software. Of course an image can be photoshoped to look different; however, if it showed nothing of the original film's characteristics anyone who scans negatives or slided would just shoot the cheapest film we could find.

 

I apoologise for somehow blipping over that you specified k64. I probably started searching for a Kodachrome scan, and just absolutely forgot it.

Thanks for the advice. Ill try Dwaynes/Walmart next time. Also, yes, Michigan, or rather Detroit, can be hazy in the summer. But this has been a strange summer, very cool and dry (blue sky). I shot the k64 on such a day, including colorful flowers, and was suprised to see them bright and beautiful on the slides. After reasing other posts, I had begun to regret buying the Kodachrome before I even got the slides back, afraid everything would be blah and overly cool/blue. Maybe I was lucky, but my results were fantastic. I guess it just reinforces the saying "to each his own." As for myself, I like Kodachrome a lot. Which is good, becaused I was thinking, maybe it was a waste to get into fim/slide photography now that everything is going digital. Particularly if the slides are simply going to fade away leaving me with nothing in 20 years. In that case, I would prefer digital - at least it would last. But still, I would rather have something real, something physical, such as K slides to look at years from now.

Does anyone know how long Fuji's new slide formulations are supposed to last?

I heard somewhere that Astia is supposed to last 300 years.

We covered the Fuji claims on July 20th. That 300 year claim is not true!

 

***************************************

 

Robert Johnson , jul 12, 2004; 10:11 p.m.

OK, I found the Astia 100F tech sheet on the Fuji.UK web site. It's a PDF with the URL:

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/technical/download/AF3-149E.pdf

 

They state on page 3 of the pdf that almost no change for 10-20 years for storage of less than 25C at 30 to 50%RH. It gets better than 20 years at less than 10C at 30 to 50% RH. No where does it state 300 years. IMHO, that's no better than the present Kodak or other Fuji pro films. That's NOT EVEN CLOSE to Kodachrome!

 

Go here for some general background information on color film dye stability:

 

http://www.fotoinfo.com/info/technicalinfo/stability.html

 

Robert Johnson

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anthony Oresteen , jul 14, 2004; 01:34 p.m.

Here's Fuji press release:

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/PRNewsDetail.jsp?DBID=NEWS_547199&CAT_ID=233844

 

Nowhere do they claim 300 years; Mike, it must be a mis-quote.

 

They may say it's 300 years if you call their 800 number and ask, but they fail to document it in writing ANYWHWERE!

 

Robert Johnson

For many years I shot 35mm Kodachrome 64. Last batch was processed in 1999. From the Kodak or Kodalux labs there was always considerable fine paper dust from the cardboard slide mounts. Easily removed with presurized air.