Kodachrome 64 being withdrawn???

Kodachrome 64, that is.

Thanks for the photo post! I am awaiting my first kodachrome slides due back from the lab Saturday. Cant wait. From the photo, it does look like it is a cooler film than most today - or maybe I should say more natural, accurate colors. I think prefer more saturated images, but we will see.

Kodachrome II -thanks for the background info- I think this must be what my dad shot, as the colors in the old slides (early 70's) look so brilliant - even the indoor shots.

...too bad they took Paul Simons Kodachrome away - I hope it is a while before they take ours away.

Oh yes, I got an e-mail from BH saying they had it back in stock, so looks like they got a new shipment/its still available.

Kodachrome does have more natural colours, although they are still a little punchier than reality. I am a huge Kdoachrome fan; however, it isn't always the right film for all purposes. It does have fantastic skin tones though, regardless of ethicity. Try some K200 too and see what you think.

 

Good luck.

Gratuitous K64 plug...<div></div>

Lex,

 

Re: your plug

 

I like the composition and the colors, but what gives with the background? Strange looking bokeh.

<I>Try some K200 too and see what you think.</I><P>

 

<center><img src="http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/biguns/weed0002_blog.jpg"></center>

Hey Lex, her skin tones look really natural...just messing

Kodak released all new Kodachromes in the 70s and 80s in the face of static or already declining sales. And the new process was easier to control than the old one, but still difficult as pointed out above.

 

Even then, the decrease in sales, already observed, are what killed the Kodachrome 400 project, along with any new improvements on the drawing boards.

 

The start of the spiral was the decrease in sales, and there was quite a bit of 'hype' when Kodachrome 200 and the new process were introduced. These were hyped to both the consumer and photofinisher base. It didn't work. The spiral kept going downward.

 

I don't know the reasons, but it wasn't for lack of advertising or anything else. Sales were just not there at the very outset of the new products and just stayed level or decreased for the entire line. I remember how discouraged some of the workers were when the new 200 film didn't take off. Instead, Ektachrome sales surged.

 

Then, in the 90s, Fuji came out with their new reversal films, and they took off as well, then faltered either through a processing problem or bad product, IDK, but then the problem was fixed and Fuji reversal film sales took off further eroding Kodachrome sales.

 

Now, digital is eating into the whole market, but sales of some conventional films are still brisk in Africa and Asia.

 

Ron Mowrey

Ted: Yup, it is indeed odd bokeh, something even folks who don't know the word "bokeh" might notice.

 

That was taken with my Ricoh SLR and, probably, Ricoh's brand 50mm f/1.8 lens, sometime during the mid to late 1970s while I was stationed at the Balboa Naval Regional Medical Center across the street from this park. Beautiful structures throughout this park.

 

The Ricoh lens was very sharp - equal to my Nikkors and Zuikos - but produced odd bokeh at wider apertures. That, combined with the pointed fronds of the trees in the background, combined to create the odd effect you see.

 

Generally this is what you'll see when a lens produces what I call "cross-eyed" or "doubled" bokeh rather than softly and gradually blurring and blending the out of focus areas. It's most visible in linear objects such as twigs and stems or those with defined edges such as buildings. Zuikos and Canon FD lenses rarely exhibit cross-eyed bokeh. It's a characteristic more common to Nikkors, something I noticed 20 years ago when comparing photos taken by my friends who were photojournalists, some of whom used Nikon gear while others used Canon.

 

Anyway, I digress. Nothing looks quite like Kodachrome. This photo is one of the better examples I have. The structure in the background, which appears slightly greenish in this jpeg, is warmer on the original slide. It's very difficult to balance the statue to its original neutral grey while retaining faithful colors elsewhere - Kodachrome is uncooperative with scanning and I didn't have the patience to overlay multiple layers and correct each deficient area.

Lexu san;

 

Bokeh wa nippongo kara desu. Anata no shashin wa sukoshi bokeh desu. Dame desu. Gomennasai.

 

Tokyo ni sunda toki wa nippongo o benkyo shimashita, ga dandan wasuremasu. Ima wa, sukoshi dake hanasu koto ga dekimasu.

 

Too bad my kana and kanji word processor don't work here.

 

Mata ato de.

 

Ron Mari

I like how Skully did the backlighting, but is that really how

Kodachrome 200 renders skin tones? Or more like this.<div></div>

No K200 doesn't normally have that colour palettee; however, it is a different look from K64

 

Here are examples the first 2 are k200 the last is k64

An interesting tale...

 

Once upon a time, a large film producing company had a flagship product. One could not open a magazine that published any pictures without seeing some photos shot on this particular film. Pro photographers the world over used this film and loved it.

 

So the management of the company said, "We need a new film! Different! Let's make a film and call it E...."

 

This new film had a brownish, yellowish cast and would fade after a short time. Instead of calling it a failure, however, the company decided to invest more in marketing and further development of this new type of film. Meanwhile, they ignore the flagship product. A big green monster comes along and produces a better E... like film than the Great "Y" Father could produce. "Invest more in E..." they cried "This is how we will regain ground" "Where should the money come from?" "Why, from that old K... product, of course! We need to look to the future!"

 

Well, to make a long story short (relatively). Trying to beat a green monster at its own game is a loosing battle. The former flagship product is near dead, but not quite because a few won't let it die. It may be suspected that itis a notable embarrassment to its manufacturer because it simply shows them how they lost the lock they had on the market. Of course, others may say that they are too blind to even see this, though

 

You be the judge...Fairy tale or actual history????

Dave;

 

All of these tales are interesting, but don't wash.

 

EK had some seriously upgraded Kodachrome films in R&D in the 80s, and sent samples to various professionals at the time. This included the HS Kodachrome with an EI of 400.

 

NO ONE WANTED THEM!

 

Read that. NO ONE WANTED THEM. EK could not sell them. They wanted Ektachrome or color negative film. So, that is what they got.

 

Sorry, but I was there as it happened.

 

Look for my name on the patent for the yellow color developing agent. It is CD6. Been there, seen it happen.

 

The downward spiral took place in the reverse order of what is portrayed in this thread. Sorry about that, and that should dispel a big myth about Kodachrome film. (one hopes - but PN devotees seem to believe what they want to). People stopped buying right after the introduction of some serious upgrades to the entire film line, the ones you like right now. Then, when approached with further improvements in speed and grain, with no sacrifice in color, no one was interested.

 

Do you think EK develops a film and abandons it with no market research? How stupid do you think they are? Back in the 80s, they sent samples to professionals to test out before formal introduction. Reaction was blase. It was "we want Ektachrome, give us more". Remember, there was no Fuji Velvia at this time. The market was Kodachrome and Ektachrome vs Vericolor. So, the market in professionals and amateurs wanted Ektachrome, current Kodachrome, Vericolor, and Gold.

 

There you have it.

 

I don't agree either, but that is a fact.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>How stupid do you think they are? </i>

<p>

Roland -- we love you, man, but are you sure you really want an answer to that question?

Reuben;

 

See my other answer on the thread about Tech Pan.

 

You see, I know more about what is going on than you do.

 

Sorry.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland, thanks for all the inside insight into what's really going on. Even if your experimental Kodachromes had sufficiently excited the beta testers, the scanning difficulties apparently inherent in Kodachrome would have eventually killed the film.

 

Lex, I think the statue in your very nice San Diego picture is actually in the Old Town rather than Balboa Park.

<I>I like how Skully did the backlighting...</I><P>

 

I didn't do anything but push the button. It's just vignetting, probably compounded by the scanner. That's grass in the background.<P>

 

<I>but is that really how Kodachrome 200 renders skin tones?</i><P>

 

Probably not. I suck at color correction. I should get a drum scan and get them to match the trans.

Ted;

 

You are welcome.

 

You know that the Kodachromes I spoke of were 'beta' tested before such a thing as a scanner existed for the commercial market. So the problem of the scanning was moot at the time, for all practical purposes. That was in 1980 or so.

 

The problem is related to all of the printing problems of Kodachrome whether by scanner, Ilfochrome, or type "R". It is related to the unit neutral formed by the dye set. And it is related to the claims for 'good greens' which really are not correct in strictest terms.

 

Kodachrome greens are really awful. They just look good. ;-) And therein lies a very complex technical tale.

 

Ron Mowrey

Roland - I don't think you read my post ;)

Reuben;

 

I read your posts here and on all of the other threads. I have posted the correct information where needed in all cases.

 

As a matter of fact, I agree with one point. EK could use more people with sound photographic backgrounds at high levels. That isn't to say there are none though. I just think more would be useful.

 

Ron Mowrey

<p>It is sad that Kodachrome is sunset. There just not enough people shooting slides any more and it does't make sense for Kodak to support both Koda and Ekta processes. B&H is out of Kodachrome 64 already. I think you can still get the film at a price. (Saw someone selling it at $30 a roll on line) But if you can't get it process it is no good :( Can someone give us a Kodachrome filter on photoshop? I think is signify the change from photography to photoshopgraphy.</p>