The real reason to use Kodachrome?

After reading and contributing to the thread "Your Oldest

Kodachrome?" below, I got to thinking about a few issues and

arguments I've read here in the past, which inspired me to start

this thread and get other opinions on my thoughts.

There regularly appears posts on the photo.net forums about the pros

and cons of Kodachrome. Its supporters defend it to the death and

its detractors can be incredibly scathing of it. The detractors

point out that there are modern slide films that look and perform

better than Kodachrome in various ways, and that is probably a valid

point. Technically (for example) Velvia might have smaller grain,

and be more pleasing to the eye to its fans. I'm not posting this to

say that either side of the argument is right or wrong on technical

or "artistic" issues, especially since (as they say) beauty is in

the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their own

personal preferences.

 

But the "Your Oldest Kodachrome?" thread has proven one point that

even Kodachrome's detractors would have to (begrudgingly?) admit.

That is that given enough passage of time the Kodachromes will look

better than any E6 transparency. Or to put it another way, if you

place two brand new slides side by side, one Kodachrome and one E6,

the E6 may indeed look better. But in fifty years time the

Kodachrome IS going to look better. The E6 IS going to look worse.

Photographs are a priceless capture of a moment in time, so why

choose a film that you know will look bad in the future? Look at all

those beautiful family snapshots in the "Your Oldest Kodachrome?"

thread. It would be a real crime if they were all faded away to

practically nothing now.

 

I understand that longevity is often not required in photography.

Most photos taken for commercial purposes are only required "now",

not "later", so under those circumstances using a better looking E6

is without any doubt the right thing to do.

 

But many of us who are enthusiastic amateurs, like myself, want to

be able to look back on our "masterpieces" in years to come, and

have our children and grandchildren do the same. Unless we want our

decendants posting on photo.net way in the future that grandad's

Velvias have all faded, but great-great grandad's Kodachromes are

fine, then Kodachrome is the way to go for documenting our lives.

Just look at people's comments on the "Your Oldest Kodachrome"

thread to see that it's true. Whether it's our own photos from many

years ago, or photos that our parents or grandparents took, everyone

there cherishes them and cherishes the fact that they look like they

were taken yesterday.

 

Myself, I use Kodachrome, but more often than not I don't. I split

my film usage between colour neg, b & w neg, Kodachrome and E6. The

film I choose all depends on the subject, conditions and general

reason I'm shooting on that particular day. I think perhaps I might

start using Kodachrome a bit more now though after reading

everyone's "Oldest Kodachrome" posts. What a shame that Kodak make

it so damn hard to do!

 

One additional thing I'd like an opinion on from other Kodachrome

users is this... I started using Kodachrome when I got my first SLR

in about 1991, but I've never been able to emulate the look of my

Grandfather's Kodachromes from the 50s & 60s. Mine just look a bit

dull in comparison. Have others out there found the same thing? I

know that that even this old-tech Kodachrome film has changed its

chemistry a few times over the last fifty years, so perhaps not all

the changes were for the better.

 

Any other opinions out there on anything I've written here?

What you say above, is in my opinion, bang on. I too use Kodachrome 64 and a host of E-6 films for all my colour works. Kodachrome will never have the vibrant colours of Velvia 100F, nor the tight grain of E100G. Therefore if I need either bright colours or tight grain, I will settle for the appropriate E-6 emulsion. However Kodachrome has a distinct look that I really enjoy, I love the natural colours, and I have to say even the grain pleases me. Its also nice to know I will be able to look at my Kodachromes as long as I live. However the fact that the E-6 emulsions will not last as long does not bother me. In recent years emulsions have been upgraded and I am quite certain many E-6 slides could go 30 years before fading. The one thing I have to say I dislike about Kodachrome is the processing. I'm from BC, it takes 1 month for my Kodachromes to come back from the east coast. I can't complain however, the price is right ($9).

 

--Dominic

Archival quality is one reason I still like Kodachrome. So is the palette, despite claims that K64 is inferior. It has limitations - that green cast under heavy foliage - but when used in the right light it's very attractive.

 

And it works well in extremely contrasty lighting where Velvia can be difficult to use. I started out using it to shoot exteriors for a personal project, documenting a particular architectural style. It worked well under the often harsh sunlight I encounter in Texas.

 

But I've used mostly E6 films the past few years, particularly Provia 100F. I'll try other slide films occasionally as they appear on the market but I keep coming back to Provia. I won't claim it's superior to anything else on the market - it simply appeals to my tastes. It's sharp enough, the grain is fine enough, the color is appealing enough for most of my subject matter under the lighting conditions I typically encounter. It's become comfortable and since I don't shoot nearly as much color film of any kind as I do b&w film, familiar is better.

 

I'm just hoping that improvements have been made to E6 films in general so my slides will be usable in 20 or so years.

 

At least with Kodachrome we know there will be enough image to scan decades from now. Maybe consumer grade scanners will improve enough to handle Kodachrome more easily. And even if there are any color shifts they can be fixed digitally. With most of my thin, faded, orangey Ektachromes there's not enough image remaining to scan.

 

BTW, I can challenge a myth one occasionally hears about Kodachrome - that it remains viable significantly longer than E6 films after unexposed expired film is used or that the latent image remains stable longer before the exposed film is processed. I had the unfortunate experience of using a year-expired roll of Kodachrome that hadn't been refrigerated, assuming it would be okay. The colors were faded, inaccurate and the slides were grainy. But another year-expired roll that had been refrigerated exposed and processed at the same time as the other roll turned out fine. I'm a little less cavalier about using expired slide film now. Unless I know how it's been stored, I don't bother shooting it or developing it if it was exposed but not processed promptly.

I should know the technical difference between Kodachrome emulsion and E6, but I am ashamed to admit that my memory retention is not what it once was - however, I do remember my father shooting 16mm doccumentaries on Kodachrome stock which was 10 ASA, and I remember the excitement when Kodachrome II was released with an ASA of 25! That was about when I bought one of the first Nikon F's and I was working for Kodak as a junior techie. The photo world went wild when Kodachrome 64 hit the shelves. The color, saturation and resolving power of Kodachrome 25 was unsurpassed by any other film, and I dare say, when processed on a good day, it would have given Velvia a run for it's money.

 

Is it possible that Kodak are now processing Kodachrome to a lower gamma? Maybe to allow easier scanning and conversion to digital? Why did Big Yellow not continue to improve Kodachrome? Sure the processing was critical and the chemistry volatile, but the process could have been made commercially viable to independent labs.

One more thought - The "digital" photographic world seeme to be totally unconcerned with the subject of archival quality - or anything concerning the longevity of images! I have just sorted and scanned some of my fathers Kodachrome slides of fairly historic importance - the building of Lake Kariba in what is now Zimbabwe, and the rescue of the wild animals stranded on the islands that formed as the waters rose (Operation Noah). If these images had been shot on Ektachrome 64, I doubt that they would be salvagable. There are a few Ektachrome slided amongst them, and they are completely devoid of color or density.

 

If he had shot these images using a Canon Eos D10, and the year was now 2040, and I had found a CD ROM marked "Kariba", would I be able to access the digital files? Would I have a CD-ROM drive that would accept this disc? Would I have software such as Photoshop or even Windows Viewer? I think not. Seven years ago I was still using a 7 inch floppy drive to back up files - try and find one now! I fear that the only archival media will be in print form, and we have a long way to go to acheive archival digital prints.

It's an interesting question for sure. I contributed a 1947 Kodachrome to the thread below, one of many from the 40's and 50's that my father shot, and which are still in incredibly good shape. Kodachrome detractors can point to this or that in the color, but they're still vibrant and bright, and pleasing. In fact, on the one I scanned here, the red of the little girl's trousers proved impossible to duplicate in scanning - the scan only hints at the richness of it. A Kodachrome detractor might rag on the poor grass color, not realizing that it was shot in Brooklyn in October. By contrast, when I was 12, in 1960, and got my first "real" camera, I began shooting Ektachrome for the speed and cheapness, and most of those slides are now poor orange monochromes.

 

On the other hand, I have some other Ektachromes from the mid to late 60's that have held up quite well, and it seems that under decent storage conditions more recent E6 may last for quite a long time. It's always a question how long they'll last, and of course how long anybody will care. I'd like to think I'm taking good pictures, but I'd be flattering myself to think that there's much of historical or artistic importance in them, so I opt for the cheapness and immediate gratification of E6, and can only hope that if some descendant finds my cache of slides in the future they'll still have some useful information on them. Of course we never know for sure what will be of historical interest, and one of the sad byproducts of easy digital erasure is the loss of pictures whose interest isn't apparent until many years later. I look now at some of those old snapshots, and often it's the bygone environment rather than the subject which holds the real interest.

 

As for digital storage, I guess we can only hope that there will be enough demand for retrieval of CD's and DVD's in the future that someone will keep on making readers after they're obsolete. time will tell. In the meantime I'm sticking to film. Even a faded, yellowed slide has a useable image on it.

<I>But many of us who are enthusiastic amateurs, like myself, want to be able to look back on our "masterpieces" in years to come, and have our children and grandchildren do the same.</i><P>First, I am continually and perpetually baffled at why some photographers get so 'arroused' at looking at some stupid, 24mm x 36mm piece of film barely larger than a postage stamp that you have to squint through a loupe to see detail. While ideas of photography are often perceptual, my 'idea' of photography is having an image in a format others can view, such as a 16x20 print on my wall, or giving a friend an 8x10 print of their kid I shot the day before on Fuji Crystal Archive. That's photography. If you can force people to sit and watch your slides being projected on a fuzzy, less than planar screen through a low wattage tungsten bulb in a darkened room, good for you. Storing a box of chromes in a shoebox for 50 years is not photography. This irritating and self masturbating religion created out of producing 24mm x 36mm pieces of brightly colored film emulsion for no other purpose than to gloat over them is totally moronic and self defeating. If I want to "document" an event, I'll do it properly with full video - not stills on film.<P>Next, and the real torpedo that will sink Carl's ship, is that when I shoot slide film I don't buy E-6 films made 20 years ago, I don't buy E-6 slide films made by Kodak Corp with iffy archival characteristics, and I don't go into a time machine and have my E-6 slide films processed at a lab 20 years ago.<P>While Kodachrome's archival characteristics are 'theoretically' better than dye coupled E-6, this assumes ideal storage of Kodachrome (preferably argon bath dark storage), worst case scenarios for storing E-6 films, and using non dimensionally stable E-6 materials. All I can say is my Fujichrome 50 slides shot 12 years ago look damn near perfect, while my Ektachrome slides from the same period are not faring so good. <P>The Kodachrome stability debate is much like Cibachrome vs RA-4. While 20 ago Cibachrome was the only dimensionally stable color photographic material, such is not the truth today, yet we still get jerks on photo.net trying to spread the propoganda that because Ciba was the top dog 20years ago, it must be so today, and then claiming Fuji RA-4 materials are just as bad as Kodak EP-2 materials in the 70's. If you really think Kodachrome processed 20 years vs Ektachrome 400 processed 20 years ago is a fair reference of the quality of today's Fuji E-6 materials, then be happy in your ignorance. I do admit that where the actual 'line in the sand' is in regards to the best E-6 films made today vs Kodachrome in a stability debate I can't give absolute numbers on. <P>My complaints about Kodachrome are numerous and posted here many times. The material is extremely difficult if not impossible to produce a tonally acurate R-type print from, it's scanning abilities are drastically inferior to virtually any modern E-6 film, it blocks up strong colors worse than any amatuer print film, it has no shoulder roll off like Sensia or E100G, it's exposure lattitude is horrid, it's grainy, and getting it processed with the quality level of E-6 is an excercise in faith and prayer. When I look at a Kodachrome slide I see a process that exagerates midtone contrast and sharpness, but nothing else. Unless you are dealing with lighting conditions that are ideal with Kodachrome, which is preferably slightly warm ambient with low midtone contrast and no intense color saturation you are wasting your time with this material. If I need improved resolution and quality, I'll shoot a bigger format or digital. Kodachrome seems to mostly impress small format shooters who don't seem to care about full tonal ranges or high color density detail. To each their own. Kodachrome for decades relied on the pre-press industry to hide it's limitations and also produce artificially sharp half tone prints with non existent gamut range that masked it's problems. <P>For 99.8% of subject matter Sensia, Astia, Provia, Velvia or E100G will produce a slide that that can be drum scanned and provide a 20" print with with far better results than Kodachrome. Please feel free to call and inquire with any professional digital lab in North America if they prefer making digital scans from Kodachrome vs modern E-6 materials.<P>This concludes that if you aren't into making prints from slides, or quality scans, what the hell good is it? At least MF or LF will produce a chrome big enough to view without a low rez microscope. <P>Perhaps my biggest complaint about kodachrome is not the film, but the people who champion it. These are usually the same individuals who claim their 35mm Leica with Kodachrome has more resolution than my RB67, make psychotic, delusional and totally bogus anti-digital posts, and really don't seem to be involved in the sharing of photographs at all but simply making claims that their material has some magical quality better than the ones others are using.

According to Wilhelm Research, the world's undisputed authority on archival stability, Kodachrome is the worst film of all if the slides are used for projection. Kodachrome-II was a superb film but it's been gone since 1974. K25 was always less saturated and higher contrast with a tendency toward muddy shadows, and required polarization to get decent color in mid-day, reducing the effective speed to about EI 6. K64 is a tad better than the old Kodachrome-X, a film which single-handedly pushed Ektachrome and then Fujichrome into popularity. But K64's colors are dull and lifeless and it has a very narrow contrast range. K200 is a sharp film but its grain is on par with 1600-speed slide film of today. I can't see any reason to use Kodachrome other than nostalgia, and evidently neither can most of the world, as it is teetering on the brink of extinction.

<I>I fear that the only archival media will be in print form, and we have a long way to go to acheive archival digital prints.</i><P>Here's an example right here. Somebody claiming a print from a slide is more archival than a digital print, even though the later will likely be printed on RA-4 paper more stable than the R-type. <P>The digital storage debate is also irrelevant. If you don't know the difference file formats and computer hardware, please educate yourself. If I can open a text file created on a computer 20 years, I can save a digital image. A box of slides is just as much a pain in the a$$ to make prints from 50 years ago as it is today, and 50 years from now people will be no more interested in looking at your slides as they will today.

I can't see any valid reason to use Kodachrome. It can be easily demonstrated that the colour accuracy and grain of the medium are distinctly inferior to E6 slide films in general, and Kodachrome is also excessively contrasty, and requires a completely separate calibration of the scanner for different Kodachrome types while E6 films are much easier to manage in this respect. Occasionally I've used Kodachrome and usually the whole pack of slides goes to the bin, there just isn't anything that I can use. Kodachrome II was a different case entirely. YMMV, but in any objective comparison of colour accuracy, Kodachrome is about the worst of the current existing films with the possible exception of specialized off-colour films such as Velvia and Infrared Ektachrome.

 

In my case, my E6 slides after 50 years will look just the same provided that I've kept copying the scans of my best slides to new media before archival problems occur. And Kodachrome will still be grainy, contrasty, off-colour, and difficult to scan.

Oh, Scott, you old softie, you! Glad you could come around and "sink Carl's ship." Yet another example of "if you don't have the same tastes/ideas as Scott, YOU'RE WRONG!!"

<blockquote>First, I am continually and perpetually baffled at why some photographers get so 'arroused' at looking at some stupid, 24mm x 36mm piece of film barely larger than a postage stamp that you have to squint through a loupe to see detail. While ideas of photography are often perceptual, my 'idea' of photography is having an image in a format others can view, such as a 16x20 print on my wall, or giving a friend an 8x10 print of their kid I shot the day before on Fuji Crystal Archive. That's photography. If you can force people to sit and watch your slides being projected on a fuzzy, less than planar screen through a low wattage tungsten bulb in a darkened room, good for you. Storing a box of chromes in a shoebox for 50 years is not photography. This irritating and self masturbating religion created out of producing 24mm x 36mm pieces of brightly colored film emulsion for no other purpose than to gloat over them is totally moronic and self defeating. If I want to "document" an event, I'll do it properly with full video - not stills on film.</blockquote>

Oh, come on now, don't hold back; tell us how you <i>really</I> feel.

<p>

Scott, there's a message hidden away in this thread, and I'm going to whisk away the veil and reveal it to you now.

<p>

The message is that your ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend what causes joy to another person -- is not a prerequisite to that person experiencing that which he enjoys.

<p>

You do seem deeply vested in ruining the happiness of others, and it seems to me that this indicates some issues that cannot be addressed in a photography forum. For the sake of all, I urge you to find the venue that <i>can</i> aid you in resolving these issues. The world has all the Scrooge McPhotos it needs, and your continued bashing of others serves only to "ruin the stew" for people who would otherwise enjoy the pleasant joys of photography.

<p>

As to the "stupid" images, all I can say is that when a "stupid" image contains a memory of a long-gone loved one, well... I don't go any further into it. If you can't figure it out on your own, my heart goes out to you.

You go, Reuben! Seriously, all will notice that my comment did not include Jay and Ilkka, even though they seem to be of the same mind as Scott. The reason is simple: Jay and Ilkka answered Carl's question; Scott ranted and slew insults. It was quite a tantrum. If my kids ever acted that way towards another person, I'd put the fear of God into them.

 

Carl, while I also enjoy K-64's pallette (though it would never be my staple film), I do have to throw a wrench into the question of E-6 archival qualities. While we can't be sure right now, today's E-6 technology COULD be far more stable than than older ones. Just as photo paper's archival qualities have improved vastly in the last couple of decades, so too could E-6's. However, as the mighty (but now defunct) Queens of the Stone Age once crooned, "No One Knows."

The "real reason" I use Kodachrome is because it looks so good when projected with

care. Basically, if you want to print something, digitally or otherwise, there are better

film choices available. But there is nothing less tasteful than decorating your home

with your own snapshots, and I'm guessing most people on photo.net don't sell their

images. So why the need for everything in print? Kodachrome is a paradox that

today's photographers are evidently unable to fathom. As such, many people have no

idea how to use it.<p>

 

First, Kodachrome is and has always been a highly saturated film. By this I mean it is

capable of tremendous colour intensity. For example, Kodachrome has significantly

higher maximum density in the red channel than Velvia (other colour channels are

capable of similar density). However, because it does not have particularly high colour

contrast, it does not artificially enhance colours the way that, for instance, Velvia

does. Therefore subtle hues are recorded with greater colour fidelity than with Velvia,

yet bright primary colours are recorded with higher fidelity than with films like Astia,

i.e. the strong colours will be rendered with very high saturation, far beyond the

capability of films like Astia. So Kodachrome achieves what is apparently impossible

using 21st century E6 film technology: huge colour saturation with accurate rendition

of subtle hues.<p>

 

Kodachrome is very contrasty material in comparison to E6 emulsions. As Scott Eaton

mentioned, it stretches the mid-tones. But again, Kodachrome achieves (or rather,

<em>achieved</em> decades ago!) the seemingly impossible by actually recording

high-contrast information over a truly surprising subject brightness range. If you

have tried scanning Kodachrome, you might not believe this, and if you're an E6

shooter you might ask how it's possible. The answer lies not in a pronounced

shoulder (you can often kiss good-bye to cloud detail), but rather in a strongly non-

linear toe and, critically, a huge density range.<p>

 

The sum of these characteristics is a film that naturally lends itself to "straight"

photography, requires much care to use in the camera, and begs to be projected to

punch through the dense shadows. With the help of a good photographer, the

resulting visual experience makes even the cinema pale in comparison.

I have to agree to some extent that there is little reason any more to use Kodachrome under current conditions, assuming that the processing of E6 lives up to current expectations. I don't think that conclusion warrants a Kodachrome bashing party, though.

 

I do wonder about Scott's contentions about digital storage. I also can open old text files, IF the media are still working, or IF someone has updated the storage periodically, two big ifs. Text files are also quite forgiving of errors, and can be recovered even from damaged disks. An image file is likely to be much larger, and depending on format it will require software that recognizes it. And although there are undoubtedly forensic programs that can reconstruct a damaged image file, it is not a routine operation. So IF the storage medium lasts, and IF there still exists a program to read the file, you're all set. Of course in theory, digital information is independent of its medium, so one could print out the binary data from an image and bind it in a book, along with instructions for how to decode it (or inscribe it in ink on vellum if that appeals), and if anyone cares later to reconstitute it, it will be perfectly archived. That isn't likely to happen though.

 

I think in the real world slides have a better likelihood of long-term viability.

While some folks say that they use Kodachrome for those "important" situations that they want to remember for years and years (due to Kodachrome's archival characteristics), Kodachrome is the one film I would NOT use for an "important" situation. Here's why: it has to processed by Kodak. That's way too risky for me. There have been too many times when Kodak has scratched my slides, mis-cut my slides, mis-mounted my slides, or lost my slides all together. And what do they do to make it up to me? They give me a free 24-exposure roll of EliteChrome and a voucher for free processing. Nice, real nice.

Firstly, I should like to say that Scott is way out of line. There are other ways to make one's point without making the other person feel like horse... ahem... poop. Just try listing your facts next time instead of launching into a tirade about why you're right and the other person is wrong. Oh, and weather someone is practicing photography or not IS NOT determined by the type of equipment or products someone uses. Photography IS the capture of an image that holds meaning of some sort for the viewer. And I'm not just talking about some family snapshot of a decesed loved one (though these do fall into the category), I'm talking about the Ansel Adams, the great scenics, action shots, moments in history, and all other types of photography that invoke some sort of emotion within the viewer. Just as we don't care wheather Monet used brand A canvas or brand B paint, it wouldn't matter wheather Ansel used a Nikon F or a large format view camera. The result is the same.

 

Secondly, I should like to state that I am an adament supporter of Kodachrome. Just because an emulsion has been around for 70 years or so dosen't mean it's bad; in fact, quite the opposite should be true. For any film to last that long indicates that it has certain qualitites that people value, apparently enough for Kodak to still be producing it after all this time.

 

I have seen some of my grandfather's slides from the '40's taken on what I believe to be the original emulsion (so old that the cardboard mounts have red stripes on them and are starting to fade themselves). The pictures he took while serving on Okinawa look the same as the day he shot them. No color fading or anything. Absolutely pefect.

 

I used a roll of KR 64 in a recent photo class at the Holden Arboretum (Kirtland, OH) with a photographer by the name of Ian Adams. I also shot a roll of Velvia. Truth be told, I was impressed by both. The color saturation was great. In fact, I learned that before Velvia came along and almost completely steamrolled Kodachrome, it was the primary choice for outdoor (i.e. garden, macro, wildlife, etc.) photographers. Mine was processed by Kodak, and while it did take a little while longer to get back, the results were excellent. When I run out of Velvia and Provia, this is one film that I will definately consider buying.

 

There is one question I do have, though. I look at my grandfather's older slides and the colors seem to be a little different that what you get today. I am not attributing this differnce to degradation due to age, I am attributing it to a change in the characteristics of the emulsion over the years. The colors seem to be a little less lifelike, especially the reds. It has that "'50's look" to it that you can see in other emulsions of the time too like Anscochrome and Kodacolor. Why dosen't Kodak make a film like that today? I for one acutally like the color palatte of the older films (call me mad if you want.).

 

While Kodak sadly no longer makes Kodachrome 25, they still do make Kodachrome 64, and it is an excellent film. I've never actually tried Kodachrome 200, but I hear that it is grainy and is better suited to other applications than what I prefer to do (garden and macro photography.).

 

I consider Kodachrome to be an excellent color reversal film and it ranks high in my list of favorite films.

When my last 40 rolls of Kodachrome 25 are exposed I will miss the sharpness and lack of grain immensely. I prefer Velvia for landscape work but there's nothing like K25 for motorsports coupled with a 400mm f2.8. I must have processed 200-300 rolls of Kodachrome over the past 15 years and never had a problem with Kodak. I have difficulty scanning E6 and K14 on my old film scanner but I know the latest technology has taken care of that problem.

Samuel Dilworth wrote: <I>"But there is nothing less tasteful than decorating your home with your own snapshots..."</I>

<P>

Actually there is plenty less tasteful, but just for the record why don't you show me something of yours that <I>is</I> worthy of <I>my</I> home? We should then be able to decide if you're the arbiter of good taste.

A few comments:

<p>

Chris: thanks.

<p>

R.T.: "<i>it has to processed by Kodak.</i>"

<p>

Nope. There's still Dwayne's in the US, and two independent labs in Japan. Here's a list of <b><a href="http://www.geocities.com/thombell/k14.html">all remaining K14 labs.</a></b>

<p>

Andrew: <blockquote><i>Secondly, I should like to state that I am an adament supporter of Kodachrome. Just because an emulsion has been around for 70 years or so dosen't mean it's bad; in fact, quite the opposite should be true. For any film to last that long indicates that it has certain qualitites that people value, apparently enough for Kodak to still be producing it after all this time.

<p>

I have seen some of my grandfather's slides from the '40's taken on what I believe to be the original emulsion (so old that the cardboard mounts have red stripes on them and are starting to fade themselves). The pictures he took while serving on Okinawa look the same as the day he shot them. No color fading or anything. Absolutely pefect.</i>

</blockquote>

While Kodachrome has been around for some 70 years, Kodachrome today isn't the same as Kodachrome 70 years ago. We're currently using the fourth (and likely last) generation. The first generation used a very touchy repeated bleach process, in which each layer was processed, with the layers above receiving the same dye color. The film was then dried, and given a very precisely timed bleach, to remove the dye from the higher layers. It had to be dried, to allow for accurate timing.

<p>

That first generation didn't last more than a few years (two or three, I think). The second generation used the same concept that today's film uses (selective reexposure/redevelopment), but, the emulsions and process arcana have been improved.

<p>

Your grandfather's WWII era slides are most likely second generation film. The few first generation images I've seen didn't look very good. Not very good color purity, as might be expected from that touchy bleach/dry/bleach/etc. cycle. But, they were better than anything else from that era, and even moreso today, as the rest have faded to oblivion.

<p>

Second generation Kodachrome was ASA 10, as was 3M's Dynachrome clone; third gen was originally ASA 25 (Kodachrome II) and then they added the ASA 64 Kodachrome X for use in the 126 Instamatics. The current generation started with the late lamented Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64, and a little later, Kodachrome 200 was added. These (K14 process) films use a tempered emulsion, so they could, like the C41 and E6 films, survive the rigors of a hot processing cycle.

Scott gets pretty fired up, hey?

 

Scott, you typed many, many words about the technical inferiorities of Kodachrome compared to modern E6 film, but you seem to have missed the point of my post completely. In fact, in my initial post I started off by actually agreeing with you in general terms on those issues. Please have another read and try again.

 

I guess some of us just hear what we want to hear in a debate, and grab the opportunity to argue about something else. Thanks to the others for their objective opinions, for and against.

 

I know that modern E6 films are supposed to have much greater archival quality than in the past, and I hope it's true because I've got plenty of them as well.

Hardly any of these opinions (including Scott's, whose opinions I usually agree with and always consider carefully) reflect the way most of us really use slide films: For occasional projection at gatherings of family, friends or fellow photographers.

 

The top shelf of one of our closets is stacked with Carousels of Kodachromes shot between the 1960s-1980s by my granddad. He *loved* putting on slide shows and made them less tedious than most through a knack for storytelling.

 

This weekend I plan to torment my cousin's family by forcing them to view slides of my recent trip to Savannah. I might have half a dozen prints made from the nearly 200 slides. (No, I won't force my cousin's family to sit through all those slides.) After that the slides will go back to the box where they'll remain for 99.99% of their life.

 

That's how most of us use slide film. Kodachrome retains image integrity very well for such use. That's why it remains popular despite the best efforts of naysayers to disabuse us of our nostalgic notions.

I use slide film because I prefer projecting my images...my slide shows are not fuzzy at all. I use Kodachrome because I prefer it's palatte...and I don't use it for all situations. If I do happen to want a print from my slides, (rare) I will send it to "The Slideprinter" in Denver, if it's just for a 4x6. If I want prints, I use print film. I prefer viewing my images projected, because I like it...period. Kodachrome isn't the easiest film to use, it can be very tricky, but when you get it right, it's magic to me. It does seem that the old Kodachrome was a bit brighter and more colorful than K64 is now...K200 is pretty close to what people are describing as the "Old Kodachrome look". K200 is grainy, but I like it for certain situations...reds pretty much jump out and smack you in the face with K200! And yes, I have heard of people complaining that Velvia 50 they shot in the early 90's has slightly faded...I do shoot E100G also, and keep my fingers crossed that the fanfare about improved archival properties of E6 has been improved....I do want to pass on my slides to my family to keep.

Very interesting thread. A few people spoke up on a fact that the Kodachrome detractors ignore: PROJECTION.

 

I judge a slide film by how it looks PROJECTED, not how it prints or scans. So if we establish the basis of comparison is projection, then all the arguments about how Kodachrome prints and scans are irrelevant. I like the way Kodachrome 64 looks projected better than Fuji or Kodak E6 films. That is why I use it. Nothing more to it than that. If you like Fuji Provira projected by all means use it and enjoy your slides.

 

Yesterday I had a conversation with Kodak Tech Support on Kodachrome. I spoke with a product specialist (sorry, I can?t recall his name ? he was the 3rd person I spoke with) about two items.

 

First, what ever happened to the K14 machines that were used to process 120 size Kodachrome? Were they taken out of service? I was told that the machines still exist and that in theory the NJ plant could process 120 Kodachrome but they don?t as a matter of policy ? not enough volume. The last expiration date of 120 PKR was 1993 so any 120 PKR is at least 11 years out of date. No reason to do so.

 

Secondly, K25 was discontinued for two reasons. Kodak?s supplier for a particular raw chemical used to make K25 discontinued the chemical. Kodak evaluated the costs involved in locating a new supplier and looked at declining sales volumes and decided to discontinue K25. Since K64 and K200 did not use this particular raw material, they were kept in production. So for Kodak to bring back K25 they would have to fine a new supplier for one of the raw materials used to make K25.

Projection? You darken the room, turn on a noisy fan, and look at a pre-ordered sequence of images which have to be refocused all the time, never show the whole image inside the DOF at the same time, and gather dust like nothing else I know. There is no better way to ruin a piece of film than putting it inside a projector IMHO. Because of the dust and DOF problems, I have given up projection completely.

 

Prints allow you to have them in different sizes, aspect ratios, they allow cropping, adjusting the exposure and contrast, are dust-free (or at least the dust doesn't cry black and move about during projection), they show more detail, they can be looked close or far away, they are silent, they can be corrected for colour errors, dodged and burned, and they can be viewed as individuals or in groups. They can be taken out of the box at any time, they can be shown to friends anywhere, they can be used as parts of documents, etc. Why do you think that magazines don't come as a set of slides instead of being printed on paper? Because no-one would want to view them with a projector.

 

Kodachrome, well, it looks like Kodachrome. You can love it or hate it, but what it does to a scene is that it renders it with completely incorrect colours and doesn't do it well either. Thanks I'll take just about any medium rather than it. But I don't mind others using it. Variety is good.