Kodachrome

[preston_merchant]

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.

[thomas_dannhauser]

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?

[beau 1664876222]

<i>"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>

<p>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.

<p>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.

[preston_merchant]

A fine insight, Beau. Rage on, Scott!

[gary_pinkerton1]

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.

[andy m.]

<i>Jay had a killer wit and a nose for vulnerability</i><p>

 

And I thought this was a photography forum.

[roger c]

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.

[samuel_dilworth]

<em>Scanning ought to be a concern. So what do you do with your, Samuel --

project them?</em><p>

 

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.<p>

 

Of course, you can't sell projected images. This is likewise of no concern to me.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I'm in a minority </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Ja.

[maureen_stretch]

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.

 

Maureen

[jay_.]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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!

[kens]

Hell hath frozen over.

[doug herr]

Al Kaplan wrote: <I> If you were friendly with a dealer who had

daily Kodak pickup you could bring your film there, have slides

back in 48 hours!</I><P>

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.

[jonathan_bundick]

"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.

[d_davis2]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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?

[DB_Gallery]

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...:-)

[._._z]

<snore>

 

Kodachrome's (almost) deader than Elvis. With good reason.

[msitaraman]

Whaddya mean? Dude, Elvis lives!

[azdustdevil]

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.

[john_wire]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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.

[john_wire]

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).

[david www.davidazia.com]

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.