Kodachrome 200 underexsposure w/ indoor flash ?

[j._bradley_deal]

Hello All,

I just go back a roll of Kodochrome PKL200. Note: film is short-

date special. All of the indoor and some of the outdoor flash

pictures are under about 1/2 to 1 stop. I have shot plenty of 100

speed E-6 films (Elite, Sensia..) with good indoor results. I have

a Maxxum 70 and use the on-board flash. The camera was in Program

Mode to accomodate different users at times. I thought the 200

speed would be better for indoor use. The next night I was at a

wedding (guest not photographer) put the camera in manual f5.6 @

1/30 with flash and took some of the best flash shots I ever have

with ExtraColor 100 (also expired).

Should I set the camera to ISO 160 or slower to gain exposure or

what with PKL-200? Or is this a film that just is not good for

indoor work at all? I have some more to shoot and more experienced

insite would be most helpful. -Brad

[steve_levine]

K200 is as bad a choice for flash people pictures ,as you could possibly make. Next wedding, grab some FUJI NPH or KODAK portra NC 400.These are designed for flash use,they have lowered contrast, good skin tones,etc.

[andrew_pike1]

The Kodachromes in general, while once deemed accptable for indoor work, have now been totally outflanked by the portrait-designed negative films.

 

All my indoor shots on Kodachrome 64 look like crap, though they are of family only so I put up with it.

 

I suggest following the above advice, and trying a Fujifilm NP-type film or one of the Kodak Portra family (including Ultra Color if you want saturation, as this used to be and really still is Portra 400UC).

[jason_fitzmaurice]

I haven't had an underexposure problem; however, I wouldn't use kodachrome for the situation you describe. I love Kodachrome, but it ha sno latitude and EXTREMELY High contrast.

Unless youhave control ofthe lighting inside, I would not attempt to use Kodachrome. Now having said that I ave used it once or twice. When there are a few shots left ona roll, or when it is something where being sure I will have the image in 40 years matters more than it looking perfect (my son's frist Christmas is a mix of K200 and Efke 50). But otherwise go with a different film

[mike_buckles]

I had the same underexposure results using my Canon Rebel TI and dedicated flash, using a variety of slide films (K64, K200, and Elite Chrome 200). Dark, underexposed, murky. The only usable workaround I found was to use one of those white slipover-the-flash diffusers, and tilt the flash at a 45 degree angle. This solved most of the dark indoor slide problems, but it's not perfect. The indoor flash shots that turned out the best also had a fair amount of either sunlight or ambient room light in addition to the flash. I surmised it must be an exposure problem, and not really the film. Does anyone know what you should be metering for in these indoor flash situations?

[john_shriver]

Kodachrome 200 has the narrowest exposure latitude of any color film. It takes testing and calibration to get good results.

 

The roll of K200 I shot recently, I shot two photos with 26B flashbulbs. Both came out dead-on on exposure, but I used the traditional manual guide number methods. (The shots I took outside using an exposure meter proved I needed the exposure meter calibrated, which I have had done!)

 

I still have a soft spot for the color palette of Kodachrome 200, sort of a pastel version of the Kodachrome look, warm. While the exposure latitude is even narrower than Kodachrome 64, I don't find it as harsh. My best results were with Professional rolls, I think it's hard to catch the amateur version of this film with a dead-on color balance. (Less stable on the shelf than Kodachrome 64.) This roll was pink.

[dagata]

Believe it or not, I just shot a roll dated 2001 I found in a store. The guy said it

had been refrigerated, so for a 2 bucks I figured why not. I'll get the results

this week. You all may be in for some big laughs...