Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by gerard_captijn, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. I like Kodachrome, for its sharpness and for its colors. The
    combination of Kodachrome and Leica glass produces, in my opinion,
    the finest color imagery in 35mm (and is, by the way, equivalent to
    16 megapixel). I started making color pictures on Kodachrome II in
    the sixties and must have about 40.000 Kodachrome slides by now.

    I just came back from a visit of the Kodachrome laboratory in
    Lausanne (Renens), a department of the Kodak Laboratory in
    Switzerland. I was very kindly received by their head of Kodachrome
    processing, Mr. R鮩 Agassis. They develop for all European
    countries and now also for Australia. The countries that send them
    most film are the UK, Germany and Switzerland. They develop with a
    classic K-14 processor as they believe that the level of process
    control, dependability and most of all quality, is superior to the
    newer K-Lab processors. The laboratory develops 35mm film and movie
    stock. As the front- and back ends of the Kodachrome development
    process is a rather manual exercise, they are able to offer a series
    of options: Push processing (2 options), framing in classic
    pressboard mounts (mainly for professionals who like to write on the
    paper boards), framing in plastic slide mounts, film return uncut
    and film return cut in strips of 4 pictures. You want Kodachrome 400
    in pressboard mounts? They can do it.

    It takes about an hour to get the K-14 processor working in the
    morning. When the control strips from Rochester come out right, they
    start processing. Three people control the running of the
    development train (this excludes chemistry, maintenance, etc.). The
    laboratory has enough film to process to develop every day and to
    ensure process stability. As slide film, including Kodachrome, is a
    shrinking medium, the laboratory is now housed quite large, probably
    half the space occupied would be sufficient. There are a number of
    unused machines.

    One of Kodak's problems is maintenance and repair of their aging
    equipment. They retain some older technicians who adjust and repair
    the gear and can manufacture spare parts, if necessary. Many spares
    have become unavailable but the laboratory has found solutions to
    these problems.

    Another problem is the constant fight against dust and dirt. The
    plastic slide mounts, for instance, have a tendency to charge static
    electricity which attracts dust. The laboratory maintains a very
    clean environment.

    I was really impressed by the attitude of the Kodachrome processing
    staff. "Despite diminishing volumes" they say "we will maintain an
    absolutely first class processing environment". And they do. They
    complained that there has been no advertising for Kodachrome for 10 -
    15 years and remarked that despite this the demand from
    photographers who want quality imagery did not disappear. They
    insisted a couple of times that any observations, even the
    slightest, should be brought to their immediate attention for
    correction and analysis of their work methods. I had no problems
    though in almost 40 years. Very good people indeed and I hope for
    them (and for all of us!) that Kodak continues to make Kodachrome
    for a reasonable number of years.

    The people in Lausanne would very much like to continue quality
    processing of Kodachrome longer term but are afraid that Kodak will
    shut down Kodachrome production, probably sooner than later.
    Kodachrome 25 is gone already and Kodachrome 200 was ditched but
    came back after massive protests. Shutting down Kodachrome
    production probably means that the Kodak laboratory in Switzerland
    would have to close down operations at the expiry date of the last
    Kodachrome batch manufactured.

    A solution to continue Kodachrome for another number of years after
    Kodak's final run, could be for Kodak to transfer (lease?) their
    Kodachrome production know-how to a small film factory (EFKE in
    Croatia? Foma in the Czech Republic? Forte in Hungary? Ilford
    contract manufacturing in the UK?). Kodachrome is easy and cheap to
    make and difficult and expensive to develop. If Kodak does not want
    its name on the box anymore, as they do not control quality after a
    transfer, the film could be called Efkechrome, Fomachrome,
    Fortechrome or whatever. And Kodak Switzerland would love to
    continue to develop the stuff.

    Maybe Kodak is listening out there, somewhere.
  2. Hello,

    I really wish that Kodak or other people cared about that sort of dedication to a film. If Kodak is losing money on a film/process they will end it. It is just a business for them, and if Kodachrome does not make their stock go up they will put the ax too it.

    I think you will have Velvia in the forseeable future. When they stop making Velvia, then film will be truly dead:( Or maybe when Kodak stops making Tri-x.


  3. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Great writing Gerard, thanks for the info. But wrong forum? I'm sure there's people over in Film and Processing that might want to read your efforts too.
  4. The combination of Kodachrome and Leica glass produces, in my opinion, the finest color imagery in 35mm (and is, by the way, equivalent to 16 megapixel
    Oh really? When did allah drop from heaven and grant you this devine insight that your Leica is superior to a 16mp capture back? Oh, I forgot {shucks} You own a Ger-muhn camera and we own Jap-Pa-nese cameras! All those magnificient images in your portfolio superior to 16mp capture backs are just so much better than mine. BTW - I've concluded my RB67, which shoots a piece of film with 5x the surface are of your stupid Leica, is the equivelant of 100megapixel camera. Why? Because I say so, and it makes me feel better than you.
    If the Kodachrome process were so good, it would have been adapted by other companies since it's basically the CMYK version of pre-press, but applied to film. From my perspective Kodachrome also inherets the same paper'ish looking dyes and artifical sharpness of that same process. From a technology perspective it's actually much simplier than messing with dye couplers in E-6. From an applied perspective, it's much more complicated. Kodachrome still doesn't scan worth %^&$, it blocks the hell out of strong colors, doesn't direct R-type worth beans, and isn't available in legitimate camera formats like 120 which real professionals shoot.
    But still, it's an awesome film that will always be better than any other medium because it looks good on a light table even though you can't do much else with it.
    Also, the people who work at the local Walgreens are dedicated and nice folk to, but I don't plan on shooting amatuer print film to keep them employed.
  5. Ouch...
  6. Wow, Scott, what happend?
  7. My thoughts exactly, Al. That, and sympathy for the guy who just wanted to share a bit of his field trip.
  8. Jeepers, Scott! Who stuck the hot poker up your butt? That's just the sort of flaming the moderators don't want. There are advantages to Kodachrome, and many magazines long ago figured out how to get it on to the printed page. They project well and hold color better than other films over time. B&W negatives don't scan well either but I can still buy B&W film. Use what YOU like, but that level of insecurity is uncalled for. Save it for the new digital tax.
  9. Scott, man, why the flip-out? This guy likes Kodachrome, he's rightly concerned that it may be endangered, and you act like he's personally insulted you. There are a number of people out there who want to continue using Leicas and Kodachrome. If they don't continue, I kind of doubt it's going to be because of your huffing and puffing about how much bigger your negatives are.
  10. Ummm, Scott...having a testosterone problem?
  11. Gerard:

    Thanks for posting the report on Kodachrome. I found it very interesting. I was, and still am, a fan of Kodachrome film. I still use K64 from time to time, and miss K25. I like the somewhat unique color palette of K64, even though I use mostly Velvia and Provia nowadays.
  12. For every helpful person, there's an unhelpful one.
  13. It's the Scott Eatons of this world who have driven away valuable forumers like Marc
    Williams, Denis Couvillion and others from this forum.
  14. Gerard, maybe you should make Paul Simon's line "mama, don't take my Kodachrome away" your theme song? LOL. Good thread, though.
  15. Thanks for the very informative post, Gerard.
  16. Scott, you reacted to things that were not said. My remarks related to 35 mm (24 x 36 mm) Kodachrome slides. It is evident that bigger formats deliver better image quality. Smoke after you shoot, not before.
  17. Thank you, Gerard, for a well-written and thoughtful post. The criticism you received was hasty, thoughtless, and suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language.
  18. someone pls remove scott's hero icon once for all
  19. Why stop at the icon?
  20. Interesting post - thanks for that.

    I think maybe Scott has discovered that the (no doubt expensive) digital gear still isn't even up to half the megapixels of a scanned slide and as such he's traded down in quality for an increase in convenience. Guranteed to stress anyone out.
  21. Seems to scan OK with a Polaroid SS4000 & Vuescan:
  22. Thanks for the post! I love Kodachrome and looking at slides that I took as a teenager in the 50's makes me glad I liked it then.
    Just which I hadn't used a lot of Ektachrome and Agfachrome in the sixties and seventies. Much of it is faded.

    If you think that Kodachrome and Leica go well together you ought to see 120 Kodachrome transparences taken with a Hasselblad. Heck I still have some unexposed 120 Kodachrome somewhere. Wish they hadn't quit processing it.
  23. Scans very well in Nikon 4000 using the Kodachrome setting.
  24. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    "Oh really? When did allah drop from heaven and grant you this devine insight that your Leica is superior to a 16mp capture back? Oh, I forgot {shucks} You own a Ger-muhn camera and we own Jap-Pa-nese cameras! All those magnificient images in your portfolio superior to 16mp capture backs are just so much better than mine. "
    He said it was in his opinion, Scott. What gives with you? Why would I need Allah to show me what my opinion is? And why do you insist on bringing up the German v. Japanese thing? What difference does that make? So what if our German cameras kick butt over your plastic crap. :)
  25. Comparing 35mm and 6X7cm film is relevant ... to a point. Kodachrome, to my knowledge, is no longer produced in 6X7 so that crimps the comparison somewhat. Kodachrome is great for what it is, but it still has the inherent blow-up limitations of its 35mm size. 6X7 is a different beast. Better? That's a subjective call. Enjoy both for what they are. Don't belittle them for what they're not.
  26. I love Kodachrome too Gerard. A lovely film, and a lot cheaper than "digital" too ;-) Thanks for sharing.
  27. I don't know what everybody is complainng about kodachrome scanning, it scans fine in my scanner, a rfs 3600, a scanner that has only mediocre reputation.. I just think that a lot of common wisdom found on the net is not really based on facts, but just repeating of things that were stated someplace.
  28. I haven't bought any Kodachrome in several months because I'm trying to wean
    myself off it before it disappears. Superb stuff, lovely rich colours (even higher red
    saturation than Velvia, but without the colour contrast), and beautiful grain structure.
    It's very high contrast, but that's useful sometimes. Its scanning characteristics don't
    concern me. I wasn't aware the lab in Lausanne had that sort of commitment to
    developing the film, but it's reassuring to know that processing might be available for
    a useful time after the film's discontinuation. I'll be making an order shortly.

    I must admit I haven't the slightest sympathy for the current state of Kodak (the
    company). It has betrayed its customers too many times. Tri-X is decent, but I'd much
    rather support a company that respects its customer base, so I now use HP5.
  29. Another Scott Eaton classic! Whoosh in, dump all over the place then whoosh out again. The only impression he ever leaves is a Scott shaped hole in the forum wall and a strong bitter smell. The impression he would like to leave is that of a genius who has graced us with his infinite wisdom and helped us in our pitiful confusion but he never knows how to quite pull that one off.

    It has always amused me how this guy always comments on the habits and equipment of 'real professionals' but never from the perspective of being a pro himself. It seems to me that Scott is a frustrated wannabee pro. I have NEVER seen him write anything beginning with.. "in my own experience as a professional I can say....."

    Heck, I am a wannabee frustrated amateur but I haven't let the frustration turn me bitter. Its all fun whether I succeed or not. I love doing what I do and I love learning things from people who inspire. Scott will never inspire anyone with his extensive knowledge of film, paper, process and digital all the time he bludgeons people in the way we have just witnessed.

    I think Gerard wrote a very informative and heartfelt piece for us here. I dont use Kodachrome but I feel better informed after Gerard's insight. Thankyou.

    Gerard, I dont know if you have come across Scott Eaton before but please dont be discouraged from posting like this again. He attacks everyone from the very knowledgable to (worst of all) complete newcomers with equal gusto.
  30. >Scott Eaton , jun 22, 2004; 03:29 p.m.

    Hey look, the king of drive-by trolling! Don't worry, old "beatin' Eaton" won't respond.... back to whatever rock you climbed out from, raisin sac.

    Thanks for the post, Gerard. I hope Kodak keeps KC around...
  31. I used to shoot Kodachrome as it was the best value slide film around. Now I prefer Ektachrome and Fujichrome as they have finer grain. Even when Ektachrome Elite 100 first came out it had finer grain than K25. Mind you EE100 should really be exposed at ISO 80.
  32. Gerard, A great write up! Thanks! Perhaps some forum member who lives near Fairlawn NJ could tour the Kodak lab and give us the lowdown on how Qualex does K-14. I think it is a great idea to talk about Kodak transfering the Kodachrome technology to another company. If K25 were available again I would buy it in 100 roll lots and would not mind shipping it to Lausanne to be processed. I would also buy K25 in 120 rolls in 100 roll lots. Please make K25 in 120!!! DuPont did the same thing with the ADOX film formulas, transfering them to EFKE and we still can get this wonderfull B&W film in many formats, 127 & 620 included Attached is a picture of me that my Dad took in Sep 1960 with a Contaflex Super, 50mm f/2.8 Tessar when we were living in Honduras. The quick scan doesn't do it justice; it still projects well.
  33. >"Oh really? When did allah drop from heaven and grant you this devine insight that your
    >Leica is superior to a 16mp capture back? Oh, I forgot {shucks} You own a Ger-muhn
    >camera and we own Jap-Pa-nese cameras! All those magnificient images in your
    >portfolio superior to 16mp capture backs are just so much better than mine. "

    I guess you have never seen a drum scanned K64 or K25 slide, that was shot with modern
    Leica glass on a tripod...

  34. Btw, I have gotten some good information from Scott Eaton. On the whole he gotten a tad sour lately. I don't know why people take this digital vs film so personally. On another hand, people take Leica vs other brands very personally. You can tell that Scott Eaton post was not based in fact, just a personal rebuttal for some apparent insult.

    You can tell show me that Canon or Nikon is better than Leica. I do not get upset. I think each person has different methods/equipment of getting good results. I just want to enjoy good pictures.
  35. When I first joined PN, way, way back in 2002, Scott was a regular dive -bomber on this forum. Say something nice about the Leitz product and he would come swooping down fom Canon-Land, or Nikon City, or wherever he lives, drop a whole bunch of smelly verbal turds, and return to the sky.

    There is a change in the reaction though, and it's all for the better. People didn't take him too seriously, answering word for word, and letting his negativity take over the thread. Rather pointing out with humour and surprise that he's out of line.

    This forum seems to be coming back. More and more interesting threads, it seems. Beauty.
  36. Oh yeah, by the way, Scott's a pretty damn good photographer.
  37. For what it's worth, I still have about 50 rolls of K25 in my freezer and enjoy using it on appropriate subjects. I'm not happy that A&I has discontinued their Kodachrome line, but I'll continue to send Kodachrome to Kodak as long as feasible.

    I would like to think that as long as there is demand for Kodachome, there will be at least a single source for processing. I think this is possible, since it is apparently easy to manufacture -- the processing is the only hangup.
  38. A favorite Kodachrome scan
  39. When Kodachrome I was discontinued, a small company called MacGregorColor took it over and provided processing. It was just as good, if not better and just as archival, than the origninal product. Unfortunately, at that time processing was included with the price of Kodachrome film and MacGregor only lasted a couple of years. I see no reason why the same couldn't be done with the current Kodachrome product when (not IF) Kodak discontinues it.
  40. First goes Kodachrome, then E 6 was king reguardless of quality. Speed counts. Now most of the E6 labs in New York closed. The king is dead, long live digital. Speed reigns in our society.

    A work mate just bought a new N70. He firmly believes if he just presses the shutter enough time he`ll get a good picture sometime. A million monkeys with typewriters will write a great novel too.
  41. Actually, speed reigns only in certain segments of the photographic universe. And most of
    the E6 labs in NYC are certainly not closed -- where in the world did you get that
    information? Some, yes. Most, no. For those who aren't familiar with the New York scene,
    there are some areas with 4 or 5 E6 labs in the same block.
  42. feli wrote: I guess you [Scott] have never seen a drum scanned K64 or K25 slide, that was shot with modern Leica glass on a tripod...
    Here's a drum-scanned K25 made with the 280 f/4 APO, with shoulder stock & monopod: [​IMG]
    Harris' Hawk, captive - Sacramento, California
    Leicaflex SL, 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, Kodachrome 25
    Obviously a re-sampled .jpg isn't going to do justice to the original.... the detail in the chrome is stunning.
  43. "Tony Rowlett , jun 22, 2004; 06:16 p.m.

    He said it was in his opinion, Scott. What gives with you? Why would I need Allah to show me what my opinion is? And why do you insist on bringing up the German v. Japanese thing? What difference does that make? So what if our German cameras kick butt over your plastic crap"

    This can't be the same moderator who banned all those guys a few months ago, now fanning the flames himself :)
  44. Scott dont like no people who like allah. nor does Herr Eaton like Deutsche pieces of exquisite craftsmanship. and the ever patriot Mr Eaton who responds in a D-day fashion on some photo of a Berkely campus dont like all American big yellow Kodak either!!!
    <p>What is the world coming to? C'mon someone tell me?
    <p>Why stop at 16MP dude? Why not 22MP, how abt the gigaMP releasing in 2010? Oh wait, that might be Kodak!!! Fuji would be fine, but hey that might be Japanese. Canon , Nikon, oh gosh, what are we gonna do Scott Dan? What can we buy since we dont like no body?
  45. hey i have asked this before too, remove Herr Scott Dan's hero icon.
    <p>he dont deserve no hero icon, he just behaves like a hoodie all the time, he is a foto gangsta. lets put the hero icon away for starters and give him a 3 strike ruling with this being the first (in the past it has been countless but statue of limitations prohibits searching all archived forums and the countless unarchived threads that are lost (unless hidden somewhere by the elves with a hidden=true flag, aided by ever cheaper storage)).
    <p>Where is the Uncle Bob, the Gandalf when the hobbits need him in middle earth?
  46. On the other hand, if it hadn't been for Mr. Eaton, I might never have had the chance to see a drum-scanned K25 shot on a Leica (even if it was only a jpg). Wonderful shot!
  47. Its scanning characteristics don't concern me.​

    Scanning ought to be a concern. So what do you do with your, Samuel -- project them? Stare at them under loupe? Good printers are hard to find and generally expensive.
  48. Thanks for the interesting information about Kodachrome. Of course they are right in saying that it's just business and as soon as costs exceed revenue exit Kodachrome. However that point might be quite some way ahead if manufacturing costs are low - processing it is simply a pricing problem. They may find that they can continue slightly increasing the price for some time especially as it is a unversally known brand amongst photographers.

    As for Scott Eaton's remarks, methinks he doth protest too much. Heavy cumbersome gear ? No sparkle in his pics ? Can't photograph silver or gold ?

    Well there is an answer Mr.Eaton.
  49. Speed reigns king because that is where the sales are. Film sales are falling faster than excepted according to Kodak. I hate it!
  50. "Oh yeah, by the way, Scott's a pretty damn good photographer."

    To bad about his intense dislike for "Ger-mahn" photographic gear and anyone who uses it.

    Very informative article Gerard, will have to talk to Kodak Canada about processing in Switzerland, they currently ship to Qualex in the US with a week turnaround. The quality of the processing has never been the same since the closed down the local line.
  51. I honestly don't understand, after all the hullaballoo, crackdowns, and purges of a few months ago, why Scott Eaton is given a pass. I don't care how much he claims to know about all things photographic. His sneering tone and personal diatribe negate any value he has a contributor. People have been booted out of here for far less. And all he merits here is a mild rebuke from Tony. His comments remain in the thread. This isn't a halfway house for manic depressives. Let's vote him off the island.
  52. Gerard, thanks for the interesting report. The care and professionalism of the Swiss K-14 lab is inspiring.

    Some comments:

    "Kodachrome is easy and cheap to make..."?? Don't think so. If it were, why don't other people make it? I think some think because K-chrome lacks incorporated couplers that it is simple, but they overlook the fact that three different color records must be coated, each with fast, mid, and slow emulsions, and that they must be coated thin with superb uniformity. Not to mention the different interlayers and overcoats. Believe me, it is neither simple nor easy.

    I can't understand folks who say that they love Kodachrome, but have switched to something else solely because they "know" (from that Oracle of Truth -- the Internet) it will be discontinued. Seems to me that by switching now, they are just accelerating the process, and using a less-favored film to boot. Bit of a disconnect there to stop using a product, then complain when it is discontinued due to lack of demand, don't you think?
  53. "I honestly don't understand, after all the hullaballoo, crackdowns, and purges of a few months ago, why Scott Eaton is given a pass."
    It's because he's a clown. Back when Jay would let someone have it, we felt sorry for the victim. When Scott lets someone have it, we feel sorry for Scott.
    Jay had a killer wit and a nose for vulnerability, along with a lot of knowledge. Despite flashes of vindictiveness, you couldn't help wanting to be on his team sometimes, which is the chief quality a good heckler needs to have. Since Scott cannot attract any such loyalty, everyone can share a laugh at his expense when he does his thing. His sputtering put-downs and desperate bragging are so transparent that his outbursts provide a certain bonding experience for the rest of us.
  54. A fine insight, Beau. Rage on, Scott!
  55. I agree with you Thomas, doin' my little part by sending a couple of rolls a week for the last 33 years to Kodak. I shot Kodachrome before
    I had a Leica, and I'll keep on 'til I absolutely have to give it up.
  56. Jay had a killer wit and a nose for vulnerability
    And I thought this was a photography forum.
  57. I used KR64 almost exclusively once, but it was a bit slow (1/60 at f/4 in dull weather isn't great - I didn't have a Leica at the time and wasn't into all this full-aperture stuff!). When the 200 speed came out I was sorely disappointed with the level of grain. Shortly after that I found print film suited me better anyway. Scanners (both commercial and at home) have made slide film far less relevant nowadays. There's the argument that a slide gives you true colours for matching purposes, but even slides never capture colour exactly as the eyes see it - blue flowers, for instance.
  58. Scanning ought to be a concern. So what do you do with your, Samuel -- project them?
    Scanning is logically not an issue if you don't scan the film. For prints, I use print film, though it's nice to know I can get fine prints from slides via several processes. I'm in a minority, even in Europe where projection is more popular than elsewhere, but I do actually project my slides. My projector is a Leica P 600 with five-element Leica Super-Colorplan-P2 lens, possibly the best consumer projection lens on the market, delivering saturated colour, very even light distribution, and tremendous clarity. I used to project in a large room with dark walls, to a huge image size of about 10 x 15 feet, but I've recently been limited to a screen size of 8 feet in a room with pale walls. Still, it is by far the best method to enjoy the simple beauty of "straight photography", and reminiscent of the cinema (though with higher technical quality). If you've only ever seen slides projected with your father's ancient family projector, you quite simply have no idea what you're missing.
    Of course, you can't sell projected images. This is likewise of no concern to me.
  59. I'm in a minority​

  60. Gerard,
    Thank you for this post. I share your opinion about the combination of Leica glass and
    Kodachrome--IMO it's a match made in heaven. K25 is my favorite.

    Doug Herr's comment about the detail in the slides taken using K25 and Leica glass is one
    of the reasons I love it so. There is still quite a lot of it in my freezer.

    I was saddened to hear that the lab there might shut down processing on the expiry date
    of the last batch made. I hope they don't ever discontinue it, or if they do, they will at least
    keep processing for a few years afterwards.

    Thanks for posting this.

  61. I shot Kodachrome-II in my early days, and was disgusted as were most users, when K25 was substituted in 1974. It was much less saturated and yet higher in contrast. Most slide-shooting pros were tickled pink when Velvia came along in 1990 and most of them switched. Of course Velvia has a warm bias and caucasian skin looks sunburned unless you use a filter, and some people took umbrage with the saturation, at least until they found out rating it at 40 tames it nicely. FFWD a couple more decades, enter the internet and Leicaholism and K25 is now elevated to the same underdeserved mythic status of a DR Summicron and a 4th-gen Pre-ASPH 35 Summicron. So great is the lament for K25 that some people now cleave to its flat-colored, higher-contrast brother, K64, itself an updated version of one of the least-liked film of all time, Kodachrome-X.

    I admit to shooting quite a bit of K25 even after I'd switched to Velvia, mostly because...well, because it was 25 ASA Kodachrome...even though I could shoot Velvia at EI 32 and get the same neutral color saturation. I was however, not nearly as heartbroken to see K25 bite the dust as Kodachrome-II. It's too bad many here never had the pleasure of shooting it.
  62. Yeah, Jay, K-II was a hell of a beautiful film! I shot lots of it until they stopped making and then processing it. Back in the 70's you could buy English K-II with prepaid processing included for $3.79 a roll. You just had to put two 5 cent stamps on the mailer to send it off to Atlanta (or whatever Kodak lab was nearest you). A week later there were your slides! If you were friendly with a dealer who had daily Kodak pickup you could bring your film there, have slides back in 48 hours!
  63. Hell hath frozen over.
  64. Al Kaplan wrote: If you were friendly with a dealer who had daily Kodak pickup you could bring your film there, have slides back in 48 hours!
    Even better if you lived near enough was to drop it off at the Kodak lab in a mailer by 5PM and pick it up the next morning at 8AM.
  65. "A work mate just bought a new N70. He firmly believes if he just presses the shutter enough time he`ll get a good picture sometime. A million monkeys with typewriters will write a great novel too."

    Thoughtful consideration before, and after pressing the shutter produces better results, regardless of the film used.
  66. I became interested in this website because it was founded by an impressive computer science professor from MIT (read: whip-smart intelligence.)

    Before assembling witty reviews of his own, it is obvious that Mr. Greenspun makes a point of actually studying and learning something about his subjects. This way, he at least appears to sound like he knows what the heck he's talking about.

    I suppose it's too much to ask that all of the other contributors who frequent this site would follow suit. Some of them consistently bash certain films, with underwhelming comments.

    Gerard Captijn, thanks for the excellent and comprehensive write-up.

    Scott Eaton, is it your purpose in life to seek out and bash every Kodachrome thread with your born-yesterday subjective opinions? You're still just a tool at the mercy of brighter people's inventions. Whether those inventions be analog or digital. Stop taking so much credit.

    Those who are proponents of Fuji, to the denouncement of Kodak, have lousy memories. Show me anything from Fuji over 20 years old that doesn't look like total crap. Yet the quality of Kodak products, admittedly more so in decades past, is poetically amazing. A perfect example are the full-page reprints in National Geographic's 100-year coffee table compendiums.

    Kodachrome film uses inorganic dyes. All other color films, be they from Kodak or late-coming imitators like Fuji, use organic dyes. What do organic compounds do? They decay and break down faster.

    Kodachrome's design is far more sophisticated and superior. It's just not eco-friendly. Some contributors point to the wrong reasons for its demise.
  67. Looking through boxes of old slides the worst as far as fading and color shift was Agfachrome followed by Anscochrome. The E-2 Ektachromes for the most part look fairly good, the E-4 a bit better followed by E-6, but of course these are progressively less old. Someplace around here are some 60+ year old original Kodachromes of me as a baby. They're a bit contrasty I suppose. With today's multi-coated lenses they would be very contrasty but the lenses of that era, largely uncoated optics, could use the added contrast of the original Kodachrome.

    There used to be two E-6 2-hour labs a dozen blocks away. First one then the other closed within the past 10 years or so. Just like the custom B&W labs around here! Here's a question: K-II and K-X were process K-12, K-25, K-64 and K-200 are process K-14. Was there an (unmarketed perhaps) K-13 process?
  68. This is my first post in a long, long time on here.

    Scott's post is a classic example of one of the main reasons I dropped off the radar, abuse.
    If you are going to talk the talk, then back it up with the good work.

    I have been very lucky to have a member of this site allow me to buy a few rolls of his
    2002 KM-25 stock at a reasonable price today.

    This is crucial as I am embarking upon a documentary on the fine film as a tribute to it in
    the coming years.

    When I was 10 years old, I started shooting it. By age 13 I had it pretty much dialed.
    I have not shot it in over 7 years as better E-6 and digital took it's place.

    I directly attribute my style of shooting and reproduction of light to Kodachrome.
    I learned how to shoot on it as a teen and now use all of those same styles on other films
    and digital. Nothing looks as brilliant as the right subject perfectly portrayed on
    Kodachrome 25.

    I am SO happy I will have at least a few rolls to shoot. I bought a spare FM2N just for the
    handful of KM-25. Each frame will be carefully crafted into something more than a good
    slide. The loaded camera will be stored in the fridge.

    I am fully committed to bringing out the very best that the film will ever reproduce in this
    up coming essay.

    After all, they will not be pictures, they will be Kodachromes.

    Truly magical...:)
  69. <snore>

    Kodachrome's (almost) deader than Elvis. With good reason.
  70. Whaddya mean? Dude, Elvis lives!
  71. The owner of the pro store in my town has just informed me that Kodachrome 64 is no more. I exclaimed, "But The Great Yellow Father has not announced that"!

    As it turns out, Kodak will simply let existing supplies run out and then make the announcement.

    I'm really sorry it's over. I started shooting k25 back in the late 70's and stuck with it for years. The slides I shot then look as good now as they did then. Like I said, I'm sorry it's over.
  72. Scanned several 20 year old K64 slides an an Epson 4870 (matches the Canon SSC glass... chuckle) and printed 8x10's on an Epson 820. Awesome to my old eyes! Convinced me that the search for a comparable film is over. The unbelievable inconvenience of using Kodachrome is well worth it.
  73. I used to love Kodachrome II but when Kodachrome 25 came out I never thought the colors and tonality was quite right. Still, while all the Ektachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome, Anscochrome, etc. are all badly faded and/or suffering from major color shifts the Kodachromes still look great.

    I guess the biggest problem is that nobody wants to project slides anymore. It would seem that with modern electronics and computer controlled machinery Kodak should have been able to build a self contained Kodachrome processer the size of the Fuji minilab equipment, and stick one in every Walgreen's drug store.
  74. Al....

    Slide projection brings to mind a recent experience of mine. Old Gramps got the 'funny look' while setting up the slide stuff after a large family get together.

    Ran through several boxes of slides and received alot of Oohs and Aahhs from the kids. Afterwards, an older one asked me how I was able to do that. I started to explain how and stopped when asked how it could look so good if it wasn't digital.

    Most kids, many young adults and adults today have never seen or heard a widescreen movie in a real theatre, have watched cartoons, VHS movies and other content on inferior display systems (TV) all their lives and are told by their peers and marketing charlatans how great digital stuff is.

    Oh well..... they asked gramps to bring some more slides the next time (as long as they were Kodachromes).
  75. As far as I know, Kodak Switzerland, based in Renens (Lausanne) is shutting down.
    Whether this will also concern processing of Kodachrome films, I don't know. The Migros,
    a chain of Swiss supermarkets, has already stopped sending films for processing to
    Lausanne, citing the closure of the Kodak processing facilities.

    The socialist party of Renens has lodged a complaint with the municipal authorities
    citing its concern in regards to job losses in the region. The document in question is dated
    the 4th of November 2004, and refers to the projected closure in early 2005.
  76. I just called Kodak Switzerland to inquire about the aformentioned, and they will continue
    processing Kodachrome films (135, 8mm, 16mm), but they will no longer process other
    types of film.
  77. I never knew he was saying "mama don't take my Kodakchrome away." I always thought it was "gold and chrome."

Share This Page