Kodak UC100 vs Kodachrome 64 - Dale Labs

[Aoresteen]

Last year I was looking for a C41 replacement film for Kodachrome

64. After testing 6 different films based on recomendations from

this forum, I selected Kodak UC100 film exposed at an EI of 100.

 

Last fall my wife and I took a trip to New England and Nova Scotia.

I finished up up the last of our Kodachrome and my wife shot 4 rolls

of UC100. I finally got caught up with my photos this past weekend

and looked at the results.

 

The Kodachrome was sent to Kodak in PK36 mailers. The UC100 was

sent to Dale Labs who made prints, a photo cd, and a set of slides.

 

The UC100 came out on top! Even the copy slides were better than

the K64! I'm wondering now if the processing was off when the K64

went through the line. Scenes that were photographed in both UC100

and K64 look a lot better in UC100. The K64 looks muted when

compared to the UC100 pictures.

 

Dale Labs does a great job with the UC100. The only downside is

that it costs about $25 per 36 exp roll for negs, prints, CD, and

slides. But it's nice to have a set of slides and negatives to work

with.

[ted_marcus1]

You might want to try 400UC. I get great slides from it with very fine grain, and the extra speed is more convenient for travel. Neither it nor 100UC will look anything like Kodachrome 64, though. Both "Ultra Color" films are, as their name implies, designed to provide high saturation. Kodachrome produces "natural" color and will look muted in comparison.

 

If you're going to send Dale Labs a lot of film, it might be more cost-effective to just order slides. That's what I've been doing for years. The slides serve as "proofs" for identifying the relatively small percentage of negatives that I actually want to scan and print. The slides serve this purpose much better than prints from a minilab, and are also very impressive when projected. The money you save can go toward a scanner, which will give you better resolution and more control than a CD.

[ilkka_nissila]

Umm. Kodachrome has been out-dated in terms of image quality for about 15 years, so it is hardly surprising if you get better image quality from the latest high-end film from Kodak.

[bill_tuthill]

Anthony, were you happy with Dale Labs scans? I found color balance

hard to correct with Supra 400, but perhaps they've improved that,

or it's no longer a problem with UC100.

[john_wire]

Anthony.... hang on to your Kodachrome slides, see how they compare with the UC100 in 15 years. Kodak E6 does not have a good track record for longevity, if you're interested in that aspect of photography. Kodachrome is good for almost forever, at least as long as its been around.

 

I've been using a few rolls of the new Astia 100. Incredible images, and they say it's good for two hundred years. Somebody else will have to check that out. Kodachrome lasts for sure.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

According to Wilhelm's data, there isn't much difference in the current E6 process films except for Velvia which is worse than the rest in terms of longevity. Ektachrome films of old have nothing to do with the current ones and their longevity is not of interest since they are not made any more.

 

And what good is a poor quality image well preserved? The E6 films give better image quality and the digitized copy lasts forever if you care to keep backing it up. In dark storage, the E6 films last longer than we. And it can be projected too, without fading, unlike Kodachrome.

[john_wire]

Correct Ilkka, not much difference between the various E6 films. But E6 compared to Kodachrome is no comparison, right? The new E6's haven't been around long enough to prove their longevity.

 

Image quality is subjective and if you like "cartoon" colors, stick with the new films and digital. Many do, some don't. Smile.

[john_shriver]

Dale's "slides" are not on Ektachrome film. They are on Kodak Vision Color Print Film 2383 (or a closely related film), processed in the ECP-2D process. This is the same film used to make projection prints for movie theaters. Under a lot of pressume from the movie companies, Kodak has really cleaned up the stability of their color motion picture negative, intermediate, and print films. 2383 is one of the Low-Fade Positive Print (LPP) series, which have shown great stability so far.

 

To quote Kodak's data sheet:

 

Predictive dark-keeping image stability testing using the Arrhenius method (accelerated fading at high temperatures, extrapolated to predict the rate of fading at lower temperatures) shows that even after several decades of storage at room temperature and 50% relative humidity, properly processed prints made on 2383/3383 Film will show less than 10 percent image dye density loss.

[mike_buckles]

You're trying to compare 2 completely different films...UC is "Ultra Color", it's supposed to be snappy and saturated. Kodachrome is a "what you see is what you get" kind of film, able to produce colors accurately. Kodachrome is sometimes deemed "old fashioned" since it doesn't offer the enhanced and exaggerated colors most modern film stocks give you. But Kodachrome does give beautiful skin tones, and a realistic look, properly exposed. If you're taking landscape pictures, UC100 will look brighter and bolder. Kodachrome will appear more subtle and sharper.

[reuben_c]

I agree with Mike.

 

Kodachrome has a definite "you are there" ambiance to it, that cannot be described, but can readily be observed.

 

Look at a Kodachrome image of a damp mossy bog, with lots of vegetation, old bark, rocks... you will have an eerie feeling of "being there" that really cannot be put into words -- or, put onto other film.

 

Kodachrome's razor sharp "crystaline image" (the dyes form as crystals, rather than clouds) combined with its uncanny ability to capture subtle gradation has always set it apart from the rest of the pack.

 

But that's old hat in our hyperactive age, where the only things that matter are speed, cost, saturation, and glitz, and anything that can't be "appreciated" within the universal fifteen second attention span is discarded as boring, worthless, and old.

 

If Kodachrome is the fine old wine of photography, the "modern" hyperglitz emulsions are the "Zima" equivalent.

 

Drink up, boys.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Image quality is subjective and if you like "cartoon" colors, stick with the new films and digital</i><P>Name a professional fashion/commercial photographer that publishes color images that considers K64 more accurate than E100G or Astia.<P>

 

<I><P>The new E6's haven't been around long enough to prove their longevity. </i><P>Kodachrome has been around long enough to prove it's a lousy general purpose film, scans bad, has no lattitude, blocks up colors, and can't record a human skin tone correctly. I also don't understand the facination with Kodachromes longevity when you won't be able to reproduce an image from it now or 50 years from now.

 

 

<P><I>But Kodachrome does give beautiful skin tones</i><P>Post some. ...And I'll post some examples from Fuji NPH and my digital camera that destroy it. The posted shot of the airplane above also looks like it was taken with a 3mp digicam. <I><P>Kodachrome has a definite "you are there" ambiance to it,</i><P>Bull. MF and LF chromes shot on the less raucus Kodak E-6 films like E100G or Fuji films like Astia blow 35mm K64 right out of the water. I have no idea how anybody can idealize some obsolete, 35mm emulsion that requires a 10x loupe while squatting over a light table to appreciate it. This is why only amatuers with poor technique shoot K64, post scanned samples that could be bettered with any $200 digicam, and then blame everybody else for not appreciating their work. <P>The original poster claimed his duped shots from K64 beat the originals, which is no surprise to anybody with objective experience working with slide duplication because K64 sucks at anything other than shooting low contrast subjects like 'rocks and old bark' and gawking at it on a light table. Kodachrome is so lousy you have to take a picture of it with color neg film to get a print from it. Yeah, great stuff there. <P>Anthony is right on here. K64 has the pictorial window of a barbie playhouse and is lousy when it comes to getting good commercial pictures from it. Then we get to hear how K64 is like 'fine wine' or something from somebody with no posted uploads.

[john_wire]

Guilty as charged. But.... I showed mine..... Let's see yours. Smile.

[john_wire]

Hmm.... no response..... Ok... how's this for 30 year old Kodachrome flesh tones? Notice the surroundings, not a studio, not a set outside with special lighting, no gimmickry, all natural, just plain old Kodachrome.

 

End of story!<div></div>

[r.t. dowling]

Unfortunately, the Kodachrome film and processing you were using 30 years ago when you took that photo is a LOT different from the Kodachrome film and processing available today.

 

It's unfair to compare today's E6 films to the original E6 films, and it's silly and pointless to compare today's Kodachrome to the Kodachrome of yesteryear. It's like comparing a 2005 Chevy Malibu to a 1975 Chevy Malibu and saying they're the same thing.

[john_wire]

RT, I have started using more Kodachrome recently after playing around with the C41 and E6 offerings for several years. I was unhappy with the results and purchased an RB67 and a scanner. I happened to scan an old Kodachrome out of curiosity and that opened my eyes to Kodachrome again.

 

Recent rolls are as good as before, IMHO. What do you think about this pic?

 

Just out of curiosity, what is different in the current Kodachrome64 vs the old?

 

I did a comparison between the new Astia100 and Kodachrome on two bodies. The Astia is nice but I don't trust the longevity claims, and..... the Kodachrome looks more realistic, to me.

 

If I knew that the current Kodachrome had somehow lost its longevity characteristics I would have to consider E6.

 

Let me know what has changed.

 

Thanks.<div></div>

[Aoresteen]

I haven't used the Dale Lab scans a lot yet. They give you both high res and low rez scans. I will over the next few weeks.

 

Here's the scan of one of the control shots on UC100. When compared to the control shots on K64, UC100 matched the color chart the closest. Sorry to dissagree with those who think differently, but I did studio, outside, and real picture testing using 6 camera bodies loaded at the same time with Pentax Takumar lenses and a couple of OM1 bodies with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 lenses. Same scenes, K64 roll and C41 films all shot at the same time.

 

To my eyes and my wife's, UC 100 was the best choice to replace K64.

 

I have Kodachome slides from the 40's, 50's, 60's, & 70's that were my grandfather's and my father's. My Kodacromes run from the mid 70's through this year. They are stored in about 100 Carosel 140 trays. They have all survided very well.

 

I have E3/E4/E6 that have all had color shifts. But from about 1983 onward, none of my Kodak E6 films have shifted enought for me to notice. They have been stable.

 

My real wish is that K25 was still here but it's not so no use crying. I have found what we think is a great replacement film; if you don't like it, don't use it. Use what works for you.<div></div>

[Aoresteen]

And a Downton Disney shot UC100.<div></div>

[Aoresteen]

And a shot of where I store my Kodachromes!<div></div>

[john_wire]

Hi Anthony, I'll have to try UC100 and Dale Labs. Your experience may be the final death knell for Kodachrome. Neat darkroom! Thanks for sharing.

 

In the meantime I'd like to know what's changed in the current Kodachrome64. Any ideas besides processing?

 

Regards.

[Aoresteen]

John, I don't know what else changed. I was using my Leicas; all recently serviced by Don Goldberg. My lightmeter is a Sekonic L508 which I used to meter both the K64 and the UC100. It is spot on.

 

In hate to say it but I think the processing was off. I might have a couple of rolls of E6 left but once it's gone, no more. I really like the UC100.

 

I also shoot a lot of HP-5 in 120. Since I expose it at EI 200 and use a yellow 12 filter (1 stop loss), the exposures are the same for it and UC100. Makes mixed media easy to do.

[john_wire]

Hi Anthony, my FTbn and T70 usually produce accurate exposures except in the cold and high contrast snow and ice. I normally roam around the scene with the FTbn meter and let the T70 do its thing but not all are keepers(I'm still learning). Recent K14 processing seems to be consistent and accurate with properly exposed shots.

 

I will try a roll of UC100 in my RB. The Portra 160VC I use now scans well and makes large "wall hangers" (20x30) but the UC100 will offer another option. I've been using some Astia and like it, but I don't trust E6 longevity.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Regards.

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><i><b>Kodachrome has a definite "you are there" ambiance to it,</b>

<p>

<blockquote>Bull. MF and LF chromes shot on the less raucus Kodak E-6 films like E100G or Fuji films like Astia blow 35mm K64 right out of the water.</i></blockquote></blockquote>

<p>

Gee, Scott, I love you too, man.

<p>

Anyway, I'll take your demand that 35mm Kodachrome beat <i>large format</i> alternatives, and... and let let it stand there, serving as your legacy. The legacy of a bitter young man, who isn't really interested in honest debate, but is only looking to attack, annoy, antagonise, and in general, psint himself into a corner. What <i>is</I> your problem anyway? You <i>used</I> to be a nice, normal poster. Then, somewhere along the line, you went nuts, and now it's as if you're bucking for the Mike Scarpitti Popularity in Posting Award.

<p>

You must really miss that lithium.

[r.t. dowling]

"I've been using some Astia and like it, but I don't trust E6 longevity."

 

If you don't trust E6 longevity, how do you feel about C41 longevity?

 

I've got C41 negs from the late '70s and early '80s that have either faded or experienced noticable color shifts, or both. These are Kodacolor films that were processed by Kodak (remember, Kodak processing was the gold standard back in those days) and the negs have been stored in archival sleeves in a cool, dark place ever since they were processed. (For what it's worth, the prints still look pretty good -- shifted slightly toward magenta, but no fading and not nearly as much color shift as the negs.)

 

On the other hand, I've got Ektachromes from the same time period, late '70s and early '80s, that haven't faded or shifted at all, and they were stored in carousel trays in less-than-optimal conditions. With that in mind, I'm really quite confident that high-tech films like Astia 100F and E100G will age more gracefully than the Ektachromes of my childhood.

[steve_swinehart]

Is it just me or does the snow in the snowmobile shot have a slight magenta push in it?

 

I quit using Kodachrome when they stopped making 120 and the film started going to Fairlawn for processing. I understand the fascination with Kodachrome for some applications, but Kodachrome was NEVER know for color accuracy.

 

The new transparency films are much better than Kodachrome for latitude and color reproduction. If you really like Kodachrome that much, try Provia-F 100 with an 81A filter - you might be surprised at the results.

 

I also think E-100G is a really nice film for true color rendition. I don't understand the longevity issue where the K-chrome fans trot that out like it's a real meaningful factoid.

 

Frankly, if you're really worried about longevity - you'd be shooting black and white.

[john_wire]

R.T. ....it's surprising how Kodacolor negatives have lasted. Just enough color remaining to rebuild an old image. C41 will probably have long term problems. The original E6 promised but didn't deliver. Do you still trust the broker who didn't deliver? Why take a chance when there is a proven alternative. Also, as you know, color is subjective, you can train people to like a certain "look" as we all know.

 

Steve .... yep... I never get the color "right" on my screen. I have to look at it for a couple of days or print it to see the real thing.

 

That meaningful factoid you referred to, longevity, is more important to me than the other features of the new films, and I don't like to be told what film to choose and why my film selection is incorrect, so....... I react, sort of like Scott.... but I have my amateur shots to argue the position, not just talk. But....... photography is all about choices..... please don't take my choices away or influence others in a way that takes away my choices and expect silence.

 

Kodachrome Rules! Smile.

 

Now give me some more reasons to drop Kodachrome. Smile.

 

Regards.