Kodachrome 64 vs Extachrome 100 at todays price ?

<p>I've just gotten into slide film, after getting tired of washed out colors on my prints and wondering what I did wrong. I have used a bit of Elite Chrome, and some Ektachrome 100 VS and 100 G. I have an unused roll of Fuji Velvia 100 I intend to use the next time. I wasn't paying attention to what I loaded in the camera, so I'm not sure how the two Ektachromes compared, however, I think I can see some in my shots I posted in my gallery here. Two of them have more saturated colors. Now, as I look at the usual places to buy more film, I see Kodachrome 64 for $8.50 and the Extachromes for $7.50. I tried to do some searching here, and I guess there is more than one type of Kodachrome ( Pro vs Consumer ).<br>

Now for the question:</p>

<p>What will the Kodachrome give me, for the extra buck ? How does it fall in with the Ektachrome types ? Is the $8.50 version the same as the celebrated Kodachrome ( but a but faster than the 25 speed ) or am I fine with the Ektachromes ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well first of all Slide film is not for prints it is for projection If you want prints then use print film that said....what format are you using and how are you having them scanned? Cheap store scans or higher quality? You doing them yourself?</p>

<p> I find I can scan myself on a flatbed Epson better than any CVS Walgreens or Cosco can do.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

<p>Yes. I know that. My intended point was that I have found the colors and saturation so much better with slides than the print film I was using, that I want to continue to use it, AND I want to know more about the types and how they stack up. Specifically, is the extra 1 dollar cost of Kodachrome 64 ( $8.50 ) worth it, over the Ektachrome stuff I was experimenting with ?</p>

<p>I just got an Epson Perfection V500 scanner, so I'm learing about all the settings. If I find a good shot, I may send it to A&I in Los Angeles or another place in San Diego, as they can scan better than I can, I'm sure.</p>

<p>Don't be so sure about that.... but then again Kodachrome is a legend it will last forever.... it has natural colors.... and well just look at all the old National Geographic Magazines to see that...</p>

<p> What camera are you using and what lens.. A cheap zoom kit lens will never get close to a nice Prime lens on any system.... The Lens is as important as the film.</p>

<p>I use Kodachrome for three reasons: 1) longevity. It is very archival and degrades at only about 1% per year, 2) it has a slightly warmer look under certain lighting conditions (mainly outdoors), and 3) it gives a little sharper result in 35mm cameras. I personally believe that Ektachrome 100 and Fuji's line of transparency film are very good though. I also have never seen noticeable color shifting in any of my 120 or 4x5 Ektrachromes from the early 80's.</p>

<p>Kodachrome has a lot more contrast and darker blacks than Ektachrome. It is also a tricky one to scan. When projected, both will look great but Kodachrome has a unique "look". The only answer is to try it and see for yourself.</p>

<p>Henry Wilhelm rates Kodachrome as lasting 180 years before a 20% loss in the most stable dye. This amounts to about 0.1% per year. The modern Ektachromes are very similar. </p>

<p>You should be able to get excellent colors from negative film, too. It's probably a problem with the way it was scanned and inverted. I don't want to discourage you from shooting slide film - I just want to help you get good results from what you've already shot. You may want to try the ColorNeg Photoshop plug-in for inverting and color correcting negatives.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ<br>

http://www.colorneg.de/oldneg.html?lang=en<br>

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html</p>

 

<p>lots in the archives on pro v. consumer versions of the film. Basically, dont worry about it, get the 'consumer' version.<br>

I havent shot a lot of ektachrome so cant comment on how much it differs from Kodachrome.<br>

I say give it a shot. I love the film and its definitelly my primary film. Just ordered some more rolls last night.</p>

<p>Well, negative film will NEVER give the beautiful saturation and colors that slides give. After many years of fooling around with different brands of negatives (Agfa Ultra, Kodak Ultra Color, Ektar 100, etc.), I have finally resigned the print film to what it is really best at: portraits, available light shots (portraits), and indoor people shots w/flash. So many times I shot negs along side slide film, and every time, they led to disappointments (except for people shots - where you dont want the extra saturation). Even home scanning and adding saturation in PS doesnt come close to the way slides just get it right the first time. However, negative film still has its place when contrasts are very high and you want shadow detail, for portraits, when you need speed (400 and 800 iso), and for lower costs.<br>

Anyways, to answer your question, Kodachrome just has a different look. it is much less saturated than other slide films, even compared to astia, which is a portrait (low saturation) slide film. If you are looking for vivid, look elsewhere. Subtle and deep are better descriptors of Kodachrome. It gives deep, rather than vivid or bright colors. Some like this, you must try yourseld and see. I prefer it for available light/window light portraits where it excels with skin tones. You need a fast lens for this though.</p>

<p>At any rate, you should really try a roll of this legendary stuff, if only to be able to say one day that you shot Kodachrome. You may fall in love with it, as so many have (including myself).</p>

<p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/3022778504_128d0e486c_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/3022778504_128d0e486c_b.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/3007758801_d09e6a094b_o.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/3007758801_d09e6a094b_o.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/3008597564_a2eca10e1c_o.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/3008597564_a2eca10e1c_o.jpg</a></p>

<p>What Kodachrome really excels at IMO:<br>

<a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1147/1185918154_a75a5b9f0d.jpg">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1147/1185918154_a75a5b9f0d.jpg</a></p>

<p>Again, Deep Colors, not Bright:<br>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2553848476_9779510335_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2553848476_9779510335_b.jpg</a></p>

<p>Final color shot:<br>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2553035201_25c7ff2551.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2553035201_25c7ff2551.jpg</a></p>

<p>All scanned with an Epson 4870 flatbed film scanner, for reference. (it scans much better than negative film does on both my flatbed, and dedicated Minolta 5400 film scanner - sharper and with a LOT less grain)</p>

<p>For an extra buck, I would certainly go with Kodachrome! Kodachrome will give you unbeatable depth, color, and archival characteristics. Use it before it is too late!</p>

<p>Kodachrome will give you:<br>

Insanely fine grain.<br>

A much wider color gamut.<br>

Archival. It will look a good an 50 years as it does now.<br>

Wider dynamic range.</p>

<p>That later is actually a bit of a problem when you are scanning, since it requires a wider DMAX capability from the scanner.</p>

<p>kodachrome ? - definitely worth a try!<br>

it's not only a living legend, but, even in competition with latest "E6" emulsions, very unique chrome - in terms of contrast and color reproduction</p>

 

<p>You just have to try both Kodachrome and Ektachrome E100Gx side by side. Both are excellent films, but render differently. Ektachromes are more vivid and saturated. They also scan very easily.<br>

Kodachromes may initially seem more muted compared to Ektachromes, but the skin tone rendition is unmatched for accuracy. Kodachrome may be difficult to scan, and often shows up blue in the shadows.</p>

<p>If you have a slide projector, you'll really see the beauty of slide film!</p>

<p>Having said that, the new Ektar 100 negative film is also very good, and scans well. It doesn't have the vividness of a slide however.</p>

<p>Much depends upon your scanning software. Using SilverFast, I get excellent scans of negative film. Slide film is "easier" in the sense that one can generate an icc profile for your scanner. In that case, what you see is what you get. But as pointed out above, if you want to project, then of course you have no real choice but to use slide film......and if you want to print, then use print film. Print films are now so good, that unless you want to project, I see no real reason to use slide film....with one exception. Slide film is extremely archival! That's why I still like to shoot Kodachrome now and then. I know my grand-kids, if I ever have them, will be able to look at those Kodachromes, provided they are not destroyed in fire, water, or the 10 plagues that were wrought upon the ancient Egyptians! Hmm...now if only the ancient Egyptians had invented Kodachrome....</p>

<p>Benny they did.. but it was hidden from modern man untill the 1930s ..... Oh wait I saw that on Art Bell.. never mind. *g*</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1176693">Edward Horn</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Mar 10, 2009; 04:07 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Kodachrome will give you:<br /> Insanely fine grain.<br /> A much wider color gamut.<br /> Archival. It will look a good an 50 years as it does now.<br /> Wider dynamic range.</p>

 

<p>That later is actually a bit of a problem when you are scanning, since it requires a wider DMAX capability from the scanner.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Insanely fine grain from Kodachrome. Not really. In fact, K64 has worse grain than ANY 100iso slide film...and in fact, it has coarser grain than Provia 400.</p>

<p>The latest e^ films also have decent archiveability.....in excess of 75 years. </p>

<p>Finally, Kodachrome does not scan as well as standard E6 films. K64 is a great film....because of its distinctive look. But for grain and scanability, it's weak.</p>

<p>Dave I agree on the grain... But E6 t just does not have that Kodachrome look that i got used to in National Geographic.</p>