Kodachrome 64 vs Extachrome 100 at todays price ?

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by johnw63, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. 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 ).
    Now for the question:
    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 ?
     
  2. 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?
    I find I can scan myself on a flatbed Epson better than any CVS Walgreens or Cosco can do.
    Larry
     
  3. 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 ?
    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.
     
  4. 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...
    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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
    http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ
    http://www.colorneg.de/oldneg.html?lang=en
    http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html
     
  9. lots in the archives on pro v. consumer versions of the film. Basically, dont worry about it, get the 'consumer' version.
    I havent shot a lot of ektachrome so cant comment on how much it differs from Kodachrome.
    I say give it a shot. I love the film and its definitelly my primary film. Just ordered some more rolls last night.
     
  10. 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.
    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.
    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).
     
  11. 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)
     
  12. 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!
     
  13. Kodachrome will give you:
    Insanely fine grain.
    A much wider color gamut.
    Archival. It will look a good an 50 years as it does now.
    Wider dynamic range.
    That later is actually a bit of a problem when you are scanning, since it requires a wider DMAX capability from the scanner.
     
  14. kodachrome ? - definitely worth a try!
    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
     
  15. 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.
    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.
    If you have a slide projector, you'll really see the beauty of slide film!
    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.
     
  16. 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....
     
  17. Benny they did.. but it was hidden from modern man untill the 1930s ..... Oh wait I saw that on Art Bell.. never mind. *g*
     
  18. Edward Horn [​IMG] , Mar 10, 2009; 04:07 p.m.
    Kodachrome will give you:
    Insanely fine grain.
    A much wider color gamut.
    Archival. It will look a good an 50 years as it does now.
    Wider dynamic range.
    That later is actually a bit of a problem when you are scanning, since it requires a wider DMAX capability from the scanner.​
    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.
    The latest e^ films also have decent archiveability.....in excess of 75 years.
    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.
     
  19. Dave I agree on the grain... But E6 t just does not have that Kodachrome look that i got used to in National Geographic.
     
  20. I have to call you out there, Dave. It doesnt scan poorly, its just difficult to scan. I find that a little drop in the low end of the blue curve and a touch less in the green on a frame that shows a little bit of cast is often all it takes to clean it up for a quick baseline (besides exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation/sharpneing.... all the stuff i do with any frame, E6, color neg., or digital...). Not too big of a deal. The grain is distinctive and a good grain. its not 'worse than film x', it just is.
    Over the last 3-4rolls or so i've backed off on underexposing the film as i had initally been afraid to blow highlights (and it seemed to give good colors that way) and exposing it at EI close to 64, not 100 like many people here have posted they like to do. The camera hasnt ever had a CLA so the meter/shutter might not be accurate anymore, but it seems to be much better exposing 'properly' rather than a touch under. Scanning has become much easier now. For projection it might work ok to underexpose a tad, but for scanning, im stopping...
     
  21. I found a site, on the web, that had shots of 4 slide films next to eachother. It was rather helpfull. I can see the lack of saturation, compared to Provia, Velvia, and E 100 VS. But, it some places it did have more accurate colors. The pictures were too small to see what he called depth. I'm not really sure what that means, to be honest.
     
  22. I realize what I am going to say is anathema to many but I used K64 years ago but moved to 100VS - for the saturation and slightly faster speed - and don't miss it.
     
  23. I think Ektar 100, well scanned, looks a lot like Ektachrome E100G.
     
  24. I am waiting for my Ektar 120 I will then decide.....
     
  25. I don't know how archival Kodachrome is but my Dad's Kodak slides from about 1965 (possibly kodachrome) have all but faded. They've been projected only a few dozen times. So "archival" possibly has a lot to do with external light, storage temperature and humidity as well.
    As far as color saturation goes, nothing else comes close to slides (see this thread for details). Probably only a very high resolution slide scanner will be able to scan your slides satisfactorily, not that you will be able to find out if it did given the non-overlaping gamut of the film and monitor. For a lower resolution scanner, the scanner gamut also needs to overlap the film. For me, slide scans still give better colors than DSLRs.
    In my experience profiling a film scanner (minolta scan dual IV) is of limited help. You'll likely want to retain the underexposed/overexposed parts of the slide in your scans. My profiles (using wolf faust ektachrome target profiled using argyll) cause a color cast in the underexposed (magenta cast) and overexposed (cyan cast) regions. Scanning each slide individually with different exposures (with vuescan) solves these problems, but then obviously the color profiles become somewhat useless (they can still be used for the properly exposed regions at the same scanner exposure used to build them). It is probably better to individually scan the slides you want to work on digitally.
    If you're considering slides, the cheapest is to procure expired 100 foot rolls of ektachrome and bulk load yourself. I've used film 3 yrs past the expiry date (stored in questionable conditions) with good results. Wolf camera was disposing them off some time back at $10/100 foot.
     
  26. If they faded with projection they were not Kodachrome.
     
  27. Kodachrome has fantastic dark storage life, but will fade a bit if projected all the time. Mine from 20 years ago are holding up fine though. Freestyle has it at $8.09 a roll.
    Now, as far as grain and scanning, I have no problem with Kodachrome. The grain is more coarse, but the sharpness and detail rendering beats most smooth E-6 films with ease. I use a Nikon 9000 ED with Silverfast Ai software. All of these image are Kodachrome:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/sets/72157612226326832/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/sets/72157613088832861/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/sets/72157614528413728/
    I love the stuff, that is why I am doing a project about it:
    http://www.Kodachromeproject.com
     
  28. John,
    I may have missed it in the threads but an important aspect of your decision is this - there is only one place in the US where you can get Kodachrome processed by certified lab techs. That is Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, KS. They do great work but you've got the time for mailing to and from so don't look for 1-hour processing.
    I have Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides from the late '70's and early '80's in slide holders in a dark closet - never been projected. The Ektachrome slides are highly magenta and poor contrast. The Kodachrome slides look like the day I took them out of the box from being developed.
    I've scanned all my Kodachrome with a Minolta 5400 Dimage scanner with no problems. The issue a lot of people have is the ICE (dust and scratch elimination) feature has a hard time detecting its targets on Kodachrome. I use a fine brush and air bulb to clean the slides before scanning and have only a little work to do post-scanning to get clean images.
    Enjoy the look of this film and being a part of photography history!
     
  29. Kodachrome vs Ektachrome is the difference between Panatomic -x in Rodinal and D-76.... in the Rodinal it was sharp in D-76 it was not so.... still no grain to talk of ...IF you had a good lens.
     
  30. I needed some more film, so I tossed a roll of Kodachrome in my cart at B&H. I got some Ektachome 100G and VS too. I think the VS stuff will be good when the spring flowers start showing up. The G for more natural, and the Kodachrome, for when I have the time to take my time with shots. I also shot some Ektar 100 at a race track, last weekend, as well as Ektachrome, so I'll see how they compare. You can have the print stuff sent straight to CD, when they develope it and not have it printed. I may post my results.
     
  31. Well here in Tennessee the dam Dafodiles have already started to bloom and the Cherry trees are in full bloom.... So it won't be long there my friend.. upping hay fever meds now... LOL
     
  32. It is my understanding that Kodachrome and Ektachrome differ greatly just in terms of the basic emulsions. Kodachrome processing is a "hot" batch process more akin to dye transfer process than to any other transparency film which has color-coupled dyes already in the emulsion. Kodachrome does not. A lot has to do with the stability of Ektachrome and the more expensive Ektachrome films are more stable long term and appear to produce better saturation than regular Ektachrome. Because of the lack of dyes in Kodachrome the colors there are more stable because of the dye technology developed by Kodak in the late 50's. I have seen 8X10 Kodachrome sheet film that was exposed by Edward Weston in the late 40's (Eastman House, Rochester, NY) and I would describe it as an almost mystical experience. The image seemed saturated with colors containing an almost metallic depth like a silk ribbon or an underlying bolt of silk fabric. These transparencies looked marvelous in the 90's, almost 50 years later. I don't think you would find that with any of the Ektachromes in terms of color-fastness and longevity. Many photographers have found Ektachrome to be biased toward the Blue-Green end (traditionally a better natural world film) and Kodachromes tending to be a little more Red biased (lending itself to warmer skin tones). As Kodachrome does not really contain the color-coupled dyes, so it tends to de-emphasize grain structure that Ektachrome shows a little more of. Kodachrome came in a 200 ASA film that made it quite workable in many situations but Kodachrome 25 has kind of built up a legendary reputation. National Geographic at one time accepted Kodachrome 25 solely as the only film they would work with from their photographers. Kodachrome 64 being a little faster but also showing slightly less contrast in comparison to K25. Now digital rules supreme for those same publications. The big issue now is that Kodachrome is only being outsourced for processing. Kodak doesn't even do it at one of their facilities anymore. So it's all about the handling now. Ektachrome can be done by any competent E-6 lab. Again handling and process control determine the eventual outcome greatly.
    00SiRZ-114871584.jpg
     
  33. Wow all that in 1 paragraph...
     
  34. One paragraph keeps the page sizing down to its minimum here. Even with the one paragraph it takes a huge chunk of the browser page to display!
     
  35. Dan,
    My comment was not as to how beautiful the K64 grain is. The comment centered on it being insanely fine. K64 does not have insanely fine grain. It is a coarse grain film. It may be sharp....but that was not the question. If I recall, the grain RMS is 12. With Velvia, Astia, and Provia in the 8 and 7 figures, K64 is many orders of magnitude away.
    That said, I love K64. I just want people to understand and love it for real reasons.....not unsubastantiated ones.
     
  36. Try Elite Chrome/Ektachrome Extra Color. I got superb results from it.
     
  37. I don't know if this was mentioned or not, and it's a bit off topic, however if saturated colors are your goal then use well regarded prime lenses and Fujichrome Velvia 50. I have had excellent performance with that combination.
    In reference to your specific question, Kodachrome is unquestionably worth the extra buck. Archival and great colors. Don't worry about pro/consumer; not a big deal. One last thought on Kodachrome, there is only one place in the world where it can be developed. That can be an expense and inconvenience that you may not wish to deal with. http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/slide-film.html
    Oh, one more thing, I have been impressed with the colors being produced from my scanned Ektar 100 negatives.
     
  38. After you process your slides then you have to figure out the best way to make your prints reflect as close as possible to what you see in the transparency. That has always been a challenge! Mostly I scan my slides and then have the file printed on traditional RA4 photographic paper at http://www.mpix.com/ or a local lab.
    However, when I have a real special image I use Cibachrome. It's expensive as heck but there still is no comparison to the look in my opinion. http://www.cibachrome.com/ilfochrome.html
     
  39. jbm

    jbm

    Well, I will admit to being relatively new to slide films though I grew up seeing my Dad project slides magically onto a screen. My impression was that even large prints I made from my dSLR didn't look as magical as those slides, but they had been in the basement for 20+ years and I thought it was just childhood nostalgia.
    So a few weeks ago my Dad went on a kick and decided it was high time to archive the family photo collection (something like 30,000 prints and 10,000 slides) then tells my grandfather he would like to archive HIS slides, too.
    So we had a night of beer and loaded our new (ebay purchased) projector of my Dad and Grandfather's slides from safari in Kenya circa 1984. Daddy-o took a lot of Kodachrome with him, but also bummed some other slide film from my grandfather for a couple of rolls. All of the Kodachromes were pristine. Taken with a Nikon and some nice primes, the slides were as magical and beautiful as I remembered them when I was 7 years old. The non Kodachrome slides were all color casted and the emulsion had strange blotches on it...useless. Furthermore, they absolutely surpassed in vividness, impact, and tonal relationships anything I have had come out of my digital monstrosity.
    Then my Dad pulled out my GRANDFATHER'S slides from his honeymoon. Granddad turns 90 next year barring the arrival of angels with trumpets and his slides of the American west are over 60 years old, taken with an archaic Kodak rangefinder (which, incidentally, was supposed to have a crap lens but some of them had lenses from another, better production line...he had a good one).
    Guess what: the slides were astounding. Not good, not great, but absolutely breathtaking. His recollection was that the slides were ASA 12 or 25, so even in bright sun there is great motion blur as cars drove by. The rockies and the desert look absolutely stunning, the color pallette is incredibly accurate (but still, for lack of a better descriptor, hyper-real), and the tonal response is graduated and perfect.
    I went back to all of my recent efforts with Velvia and looked at them and there is no comparison...none. They are saturated to kingdom come with amazing colors but just aren't kodachrome. For landscapes where you want the greens to totally pop off the page, Velvia is fine...some of the other Fuji E6 films are less saturated, but none of them render earth tones the way Kodachrome does. The E6 films seem like Mardi Gras all the time to me: powerful and loud, but lack the subtlety of Kodacrhome.
    Next week I fly to Nicaragua and have two new wide angle lenses for my Leica CL...guess what I'll be shooting.
     
  40. jbm

    jbm

  41. Wow. Some of you are rather eloquent about your experience with Kodachrome. I really don't have an issue sending it off to Dwaynes. I often take quite a while finishing a roll in my camera. I just want to make sure I have something good to record on it !
     
  42. Mr. Mueller...
    Your Grandfather's Kodachrome was rated 10 ASA.
    Mr. Luttmann...
    In 1997, Kodak rated Kodachrome 64 at RMS 10. They rated Kodachrome 25 at RMS 9. Fuji rated Velvia 50 (which I find a little better than the new Velvia 50) also at RMS 9. Kodak also rated its Ektachrome Elite II 50 at RMS 9. It was Ektachrome 64 Professional which was rated at RMS 12. Each number doubles grain so an RMS 10 would be twice as grainy as an RMS 9 film. I understand the RMS values for negative and reversal film were rated differently. Supposedly one can multiply the negative film RMS by 2.5 to compare with the reversal film's RMS.
    They say information is free and worth every penny. Feel free to value mine accordingly.
    Tom Burke
     
  43. Wow. Some of you are rather eloquent about your experience with Kodachrome. I really don't have an issue sending it off to Dwaynes. I often take quite a while finishing a roll in my camera. I just want to make sure I have something good to record on it !​

    You're right there is a somewhat bizarre posse telling everyone that K64 is the only film worth shooting.
    I agree with Dave (above):
    Its not fine grain anymore (hasn't been for at least 15 years)
    It has a very low mis-exposure tolerance compared to E6
    It has neutral or muted colors and very high contrast (not necessarily bad, but not always good either)
    It is difficult to scan with good results
    It is harder to find anywhere to process it
    It is slow compared to comparable 100 films
    It is subject to early recipricocity failure
    It no longer is archivally better than comparable E6 films
    I speak as someone who used K64 and K25 exclusively for about 20 years. I love the film, but I have to say I think there are better films around today that are more useful and flexible and I think you should be aware the K64 is not really the "wonder film" suggested by many posters.
    It has a look that is particularly nice when projected and it is of great historical interest, but there are I think better, more useful, films available today for the dedicated slide shooter.
     
  44. A. Thomas Burke, Jr. [​IMG], Mar 12, 2009; 12:29 a.m.
    Mr. Mueller...
    Your Grandfather's Kodachrome was rated 10 ASA.
    Mr. Luttmann...
    In 1997, Kodak rated Kodachrome 64 at RMS 10. They rated Kodachrome 25 at RMS 9. Fuji rated Velvia 50 (which I find a little better than the new Velvia 50) also at RMS 9. Kodak also rated its Ektachrome Elite II 50 at RMS 9. It was Ektachrome 64 Professional which was rated at RMS 12. Each number doubles grain so an RMS 10 would be twice as grainy as an RMS 9 film. I understand the RMS values for negative and reversal film were rated differently. Supposedly one can multiply the negative film RMS by 2.5 to compare with the reversal film's RMS.
    They say information is free and worth every penny. Feel free to value mine accordingly.
    Tom Burke​
    Tom,
    Let’s say you are correct with the K64 having an RMS of 10. Astia has an RMS of 7. Velvia and Provia, 8. Thus Velvia and Provia have ¼ the grain of Kodachrome…..Astia has 1/8. As well, Astia was designed for better scanning….as was the new Velvia. K64 was not.

    In the end, there is no dispute that K64 is not a fine grained film.
     
  45. I speak as someone who used K64 and K25 exclusively for about 20 years. I love the film, but I have to say I think there are better films around today that are more useful and flexible and I think you should be aware the K64 is not really the "wonder film" suggested by many posters.​
    No offense, but are you sure you are using it right Robin? Did you click on any of the links I provided above?
    The more I use this film now, the more I like it over the faked out and truncated look of films like Velvia. And as far as fine grain goes, no, K-64 is not as fine grained as newer E-6 films, but when printed large, it has better edge detail than any other color film I have used because of the relief image and the shape of the grains. Scanning it is a breeze with my Nikon 9000ED and Silverfast Ai, I almost never have to do any adjustments.
    This image shot on Kodachrome 25 last November is only slightly less grainy than K-64, it is in my apartment printed at 65 inches wide and just blows your mind:
    00SjOm-115325584.jpg
     
  46. Gorgeous shot Daniel!!!
    How did you have it printed?
     
  47. He did say he did. I must say that his print is very large!
    "This image shot on Kodachrome 25 last November is only slightly less grainy than K-64, it is in my apartment printed at 65 inches wide and just blows your mind" -Daniel Bayer
     
  48. Hi Dave,
    Thanks!
    It was on a large format Epson printer at a local lab. My girlfriend wanted it since the colors match our bedroom decor.
     
  49. To get a look at Kodachrome, past and present, we have 42 different collections of Kodachrome images at the Kodachrome Celebration Website. (Many were submitted by photo.net members.) They go back to the late 30's. We would like to find an example of the original dye bleach process (prior to 1938). We have everything from famous work by professional protographers to routine amateur pictures. If you have something to add, send me a link and I'll post it.
     
  50. look of films like Velvia.​
    Hi Daniel,

    I'm not on an anti-Kodachrome crusade, but I think there needs a bit of balance to the unusually high numbers of Kodachrome proselytizers there are on this forum!

    One can scan Kodachrome successfully and I do it myself - but personally I find that it suffers from noisy shadows and high grain in 35mm compared to Astia 100F (my usual film). It is not fair to compare K64 with Velvia - they are totally different films with radically different colors - a more reasonable comparison is with a film like Astia 100F or indeed perhaps one of the more neutral Ektachromes (I used to use E100S). My experience is that Astia makes life much easier for me especially as Astia is less contrasty, but not so low in contrast that it makes overcast shots dull. Also E6 films have more punchy blues and greens too which is nice and to my way more balanced than Kodachrome. I agree with you the edge acutance of K64 is stunning and in low contrast situations it looks fantastic projected. But this is also its Achilles' heel in high contrast situations.
    The number of posts on this very forum also attest to the problems of scanning it and getting a good color balance. Once you know what to do with it on your system you can make it accurate, but its not like E6 which most scanners get close to correct on first scan. Maybe the Coolscan 9000 is special-I don't have one so I don't know-but it seems to me that there are very many people who would agree with me that it is just not a great first choice for scanning, especially for neophytes.
     
  51. But this is also its Achilles' heel in high contrast situations.​
    Then why did Ernst Haas do well with it in high contrast? Why does Alex Webb do outstanding with it in high contrast?
    Because they not only understand the limits of the film, they play off of it brilliantly. This is one of the main reasons Kodachrome is so unique, it forces you to understand the nuances of light unlike any other color film. I use Velvia and Astia in 120mm, but not in 35. That is mostly because of my project. And part of that project is to make the very best Kodachrome images I can for the next year or two. So I get it done, I don't make excuses, because excuses don't make pictures, photographers do.
    Kodachrome is not for everyone, it is not the best film in the world but it is unique enough to try. But if you look at what has been done with it that stands out, that can be the very metaphor that pushes you to strive for that understanding of light and how Kodachrome works in it. I am looking out the front door right now. The light is pale and flat like winter in the Rockies can be on "Milky" sky days. There are also times in the Summer when the grass outside looks flat and dull and the blue in the sky is not as deep or naturally polarized as other days. I find that Kodachrome depicts that naturally where as other films ramp it up and make it look more saturated.
    If I need to ramp it up, I use either a film or a digital technique that does that. But I never blame Kodachrome for a dull image, I blame my self or the light. But that's just me..and I am an odd duck..:)
     
  52. Ron, I am looking to re-do the site a bit. Once that is done, pertinent links to places like your site will be on the main blog page. That way, we can all be a powerful places for people to come and check out the likes of Kodachrome for years to come.
    Cheers,
    Dan
     
  53. There is no such thing as the 'best film' anymore than you can have the 'best camera' or car, or house, or lens, etc. Everything has its purpose.
    Oh, and i've had enough trouble scanning some frames of provia or sensia films to know that, even with a properly exposed frame, you can spend a lot of time cleaning up the colors.
     
  54. John,
    You're juggling around too many different films all at once. Stick with a certain film for awhile, and you'll get good at/with it. Each film has a personality of it's own, some similar, some unique.
    Also, are you using a polarizing filter? If not, you should.
     
  55. One place left:
    http://www.kansas.com/static/slides/1130kodachrome/
     
  56. I notice you don't like the color reproduction from negative film, and you said you're using an Epson V500 scanner.
    I've used that scanner on 35mm negative ad slide film and the issue I had was that the color profiling for negative film in default settings was... well, crap. The slides looked fantastic but it's way simpler to scan slides.
    What I ended up doing was futzing with the color in Aperture then copying the changes to all the negative scans, and ended up with results I was happy with, though still not quite as good as the slides. (This was with $6-per-4-pack Fuji film from Target which is surprisingly good, especially considering it costs nothing.) Part of the problem is that the negative film didn't deliver the same level of color response as the slide film, but a much larger part was the scanner/software.
     

Share This Page