OMG...I just shot my first roll of Kodachrome!

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Instead, they force me to huddle around their cell phone or computer monitor to look at tiny images of their cat (or children) doing funny things. Oh well!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Sometimes three seconds after the actual event. Annoying isn't it?</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>The few times that I shoot color it is always slides. The look is so much better than prints. But, I will say that when I can, I will try the Kodak Ektar in 120. And, the lady that gave me an old Omega B66 enlarger also gave me one roll of Ektar25 in 35 format. (otherwise, it's all slides for me) Do agree with the cost of 6x6 projectors being rather too costly for me. So, what I do with my 6x6 slides is to cut them for the 4x4 superslides. It's not 6x6, but it is larger than a 35 slide. Also, bought one roll of the 127 slide film available once. It had sprocket holes. (Which should be a crime). Also, it was $12.00. Have cut 120 film to 127. But, cutting the 120 slides is the easiest and cheapest. Have 2 old Agfa projectors. Got them super cheap on ebay.<br />I feel that the look of slides is the one thing that digital can't come close to.<br />My dad has several of the Kodak Carousels that I will have someday.</p>

[gary_pinkerton1]

<p>If you don't have a good loupe for your slides, take a 50 mm lens and look at your slides with it.<br>

You'll need to look at the slides by looking thru the rear of the lens.</p>

[jbm]

<p>Yep, Kodachrome is totally radical. My Dad recently hauled out all of the old family slides...a bunch of from when my brother and I were pea shooters in the early 80's. The Kodachrome looks totally amazing. Ditto for my Dad's slides of a safari in Kenya circa 1983-4. They are in perfect condition and just stunning.<br>

The real kicker, though, was that my Dad hauled out my GRANDFATHER'S kodachromes from his honeymoon, now over 60 years ago. He and Gram drove throughout the American west. The slides are still in perfect condition with that kodachrome color palette that is at once believable and somehow equal parts subtle and intense. There is nothing else like it.<br>

E-6 is more readily available and I just got a bunch of slides back from a trip to Nicaragua. They look amazing, too, certainly in the realm of Kodachrome. But Kodachrome is king. One of the great losses when film finally kicks the bucket will be the lack of majesty in seeing a projected Kodachrome slide...they resonate with every bit of your heart in a way digital--even the rest of film photography--simply cannot match.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Kodachrome won't kick the bucket :)...............If we all shoot a lot of it!</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Regarding the lightning photo... it was taken from on top South Moutain Park, at the WPA-era open-air shelter house there at the summit. I'd ridden up there on my motorcycle, as I'd done many times before, to shoot Phoenix skyline at night. So I had a clue about exposure, despite being a bit of a newbie to photography back then (1982-1983).</p>

<p>It's probably true that being on top a mountain during lightning isn't the safest place... On another visit, lightning came down on the next ridge over to the east, maybe 500' away, striking a car-sized boulder. Was close enough to observe that a bolt of lightning looks to be about 3' wide. I have no desire to be that close to a strike again, but spending lots of time outdoors, I probably will be.</p>

<p>Thanks for the nice comments.</p>

[stephen sullivan]

<p>Snoqualmie Pass, WA. April 6, 2009 @ 2:08PM</p>

<p>Kodak PKR 64. EOS 1 w/ EF 70-200 2.8L USM @ 200mm with a B+W Cir-PL</p>

<p>Image was shot at Right Angle to the Sun, with camera in Manual Mode f / 8 @ 1/60</p><div></div>

[mark_satola1]

<p><em>Here's one of my early shots on K-chrome 25, 1982-1983. I remembered the exposure forever after: F5.6 @ 4 minutes.</em></p>

<p>Doug -- a knockout! You can almost hear the lightning sizzle on that one.</p>

[steven_d._johnson]

<p>I must be missing something here. And I'll try to say this without being negative. First, when I got turned on to Kodachrome around 1984, I was still shooting prints, but then again I was only in my teens and didn't have money for projector, viewer, screen, etc. My dad shot the stuff for years when we grew up, but it wasn't until much later that a friend of his explained the hows and whys of Kodachrome. After that, I was pretty much militant in my use of it, and the only other film I would buy was B&W, then later Scala for B&W slides (Freestyle has an advertisement for a replacement of Scala, but I have yet to try it).<br>

Now, to the point: I noticed in recent years that Kodachrome seems to have experienced a shift in formulation, as it seems very reactive to shadows, and amplifies the contrast. This darkens details in poorly lit areas, and I found it to such an extreme that I switched to Velvia and Provia. As I discussed this with my dad's friend, now twenty-odd years later, he felt the same way, and we compared projected slides shot from the 1950's (still brilliant, by the way!) through the 1970's and then viewed today's Kodachrome. The difference was quite obvious to us.<br>

Is this something others have noticed, and/or is there a significant difference between PKR and the other Kodachrome (K-14???), or was it a processing issue with A&I?</p>

[stephen sullivan]

<p>Steve - 1987 to Steven 1984 I don't really know how to respond. How can one compare Kodachrome of the 1950s to the current day Kodachrome 64 (PKR)? Or, even the 1990s Kodachrome 25, 64 or 200.</p>

<p>As for processing issue with A&I...??? When??? If you're talking sometime in the 90s it could be. What Kodachrome and E-6 and B&W I have from them, BACK IN THE 1990S, got pretty bad there for awhile. It was the main reason I started giving Photo Impact all of my B&W, C-41 & E-6. Note: I stopped shooting Kodachrome.</p>

<p>What Kodachrome I have in my Print File Slide Holders, I can tell a big different from what A&I was processing IN THE 1990s are compared to Dwayne's of today.</p>

<p>Let me make clear <strong>A&I OF THE 1990s (my returned work was dirty and scratchy)</strong>, IS NOT THE A&I OF TODAY. I'm very happy with A&I of today- 2006 to present.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>One of the perks of the job at Kodak was the chance to meet many top photographers. Usually these were very pleasant encounters. Such was not the case in 1988 when several of us visited a well known photographer known for dramatic scenes shot on slides. He told us that Kodachrome wasn't Kodachrome anymore. He said that starting in 1984 we had put a veil over the colors. Since I had started working on Kodachrome production in 1984 I was a bit worried that we had missed something. Upon returning to Rochester, I went through the records of speed, contrast, color accuracy, and color saturation. I couldn't find any differences. I'm convinced that what changed in 1984 was the competition. There were two Fujichrome products introduced that year that had more saturated colors than Kodachrome (or Ektachrome). </p>

<p>Steve's experience may have some other explanation. Lab-to-lab differences have always been present. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Thanks for writing this Ron, I had heard this from numerous people, some very well known. But when I was looking through some KR64 / KM25 shot back in the early 80's the other night and then looked at what I shot have now, the difference is that the KR64 and KM25 I am shooting now is actually *better* than those shots from the early 80's.</p>

<p>Reason being I am a better photographer than I was then and instead of using a $75 Kiron zoom lens, I am shooting with $3,000 Leica aspheric lenses. The difference the lens, technique and light makes is truly amazing.</p>

[steven_d._johnson]

<p>Thanks for the input. This issue has always nagged at me a little, mostly because I know Kodachrome is the only transparency film that has proven itself archival with true longevity, as evidenced by 50+ year old transparencies that are still true. And, please understand that I am not trying to bash Kodachrome. I'd rather use it than E-6 because I believe it will hold its colors longer. <br>

Also, and probably most important, I feel the only thing I don't care for in the Kodachrome I last used was that it seemed to really react poorly to shadows (very dark, with lost detail). Other than that, I feel its colors are more true to life than any other, by far. I turn to E-100 VS or Fuji Velvia 50 for saturation. Obviously, technique, ability and equipment play a critical role in satisfactory work. And, as far as lab processing, when I last used Kodachrome (2003) the only firm in my area (Fresno, Calif.) that would handle it without mailing it out was...Kodak. I believe their lab was up in San Jose (?) <br>

One question I'd like more input on is first, whether other people feel there is a problem with contrast in shadows as I do, and second, if there is a significant difference in color and contrast between PKR and the other Kodachrome? When I last bought some, PKR was special order, more expensive by just a few dollars (tollerable, of course!), while I could purchase the other Kodachrome right out of their 'fridge. I'd like to use the film again, and I'm hearing more and more good things about A&I and Dwayne's as I surf around. And I really wish it was still available in 120!</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I don't find much of a diffrence between KR (Kodachrome) and PKR (Professional Kodachrome). I don't see it worth the extra couple dollars. Dwayne's does do an amazing job with Kodachrome. My film always comes back with outstanding color, and it is very very clean. Not one scratch and there is usually virtually no dust.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>The orders are extremely timely two. I have had film back in just under a week using first class USPS shipping.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>WOW! I never expected <em>this </em>kind of a response and so many replies to my topic! LOL...I think this is the first time I've ever posted a topic that got on the top of the 'Active Threads' list on a forum. Thanks, everyone, for all your comments and feedback. I'm glad everyone was so interested in this. </p>

<p>I have my Minolta SRT-101 loaded with Ultra Color 100 film right now, but I'll load my Minolta SR-1 with another Kodachrome roll, and I'll shoot some slides as soon as I get some decent weather. This week is supposed to be good. (It was too hazy\smoggy today...you gotta love southern California). I think I found a few spots downtown where I could take some interesting pictures, and should work great with Kodachrome.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>One question I'd like more input on is first, whether other people feel there is a problem with contrast in shadows as I do, and second, if there is a significant difference in color and contrast between PKR and the other Kodachrome</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Kodachrome is well-known to be a very high contrast film. It is partly what makes it so good to use in overcast days. You can't do anything about it.</p>

<p>There's no difference between PKR and K64.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Earlier lenses are less contrasty generally than modern optics and this is why many of those shots in the 60s and earlier look particulary fine on Kodachrome. Good modern optics, and I am including the modern Leica lenses, are very contrasty which works less well with Kodachrome in my opinion in sunny conditions in the US. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Another reverse convert. I love my D300, but slides are something else again.<br>

My family owns a city-based and very well known camera shop. Sales of digital cameras are down. Our used quality film cameras are walking out the door almost the day we get them as trades. We are also selling double the film stock we did a year ago. Is this a trend?<br>

A year ago a good used Nikon FM2n or FE2 would sell for $200. We can get $350 and up to $450 for good ones now. Leicas also seem to be firming. M3 SS's were less than $1000 and now we can get $1400. M6's were $1700, now $2300. We traded a Rolleiflex 2.8 for $200. Last week we sold a good one for $600. Blads seem to be stable at $1500 for body/back and 80mm lens.<br>

Maybe people who are in high-end digital are discovering the real cost in time and gear, of art quality digital images.</p>

 

[steven_d._johnson]

<p>Thanks, Robin. That does seem like a reasonable take on this. My 35mm system is Canon AE, more than 25 years old and still working great! The only old lenses I have are for my 4x5 systems. I've heard from others that the old glass does play some telltale magic with Kodachrome. Maybe I'll look around for an Argus C3!<br>

And<br>

Stephen's post at the end mentions the key reasons why I still shoot film on 25-to-50 year old cameras. Suppose I could afford several thousand dollars for a high-end digital projector. Would the support be there ten years from now, or am I just investing in very expensive planned obsolesence? Last year I had to buy a new laptop computer just to do my taxes, because the 2008 software would overwhelm my current computer and then I couldn't open up 2007's return because my new laptop did not feature a 3.5" disk drive!! I'll keep shooting film on cameras that have as little technology built into them as possible.</p>

 

[g._armour_van_horn]

<p>As to the archival character of Kodachrome, that's old information and based only on "dark storage", read the actual Wilhelm report (URL above) and you'll see that several E-6 emulsions were in the same ballpark, and that E-6 will generally survive more light exposure than Kodachrome. If you actually pull your slides out and project them from time to time, it's probably a wash between the two technologies.</p>

<p>I strongly recommend getting a projector right now, or shortly thereafter. My choice is the Kodak Ektapro III ATM, which was the top of the line ($890 when they discontinued it), and you can routinely find them for about $75 (including shipping) on eBay. I have either two or three of those, I really intend to go through the stuff in the back of the studio this year and make sure I have three of those and dump all the others. Watch for a good lens, the plastic-barrel Apollo 4-6" zoom is crap. The one I have mounted on the projector in the next room is a Buhl 3.2-4.8" zoom that is perfect for short distances. I also have a dozen others by Buhl or Navitar from 1.4" to 12", and there are some Schneiders that pop up from time to time. (Let me tell you, a 12" f2.8 projector lens would make a heck of a blunt instrument if someone ever breaks into your studio!) But remember that the prices can't go much lower without getting to the point where the projectors will hit the dumpster instead of eBay.</p>

<p>And please don't change your reaction to your images. If you fill the projector screen with an image that makes your jaw drop and you reflexively say "Oh. My. God" you can bet that He's right behind you smiling. Whatever you shot, He made it, so He's bound to be pleased if you did a good job of showing off His work. But personally I think he shoots Astia.</p>

<p>Van</p>

[randrew1]

<p>It is true that Kodachrome fades in the light more than Ektachrome, but occasional projections will not cause any noticeable changes. If you had a programed carousel running continuously many hours every week, you would see fading. If you leave Kodachrome slides on a light box continuously, they will fade. I have plenty of slides that have been through dozens of slide shows without noticeable fading.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>I would add to the post above on good slide projector models and lenses that the lenses have huge effect on the quality of the image. It is almost impossible to get good sharpness across the frame with common f3.5 zoom lenses, including the lower Kodak versions. The Navitar and Buhl lenses mentioned above are great, but can be expensive, because they are known to be of professional quality. Kodak made an f2.8 100mm lens that is dirt cheap and not bad, but you will have to move the projector or screen back and forth to change the image size. I bought a Schneider 70-210mm f2.8 Vario-Prolux lens in the final days before digital projection took over, and it is about ideal: very bright and sharp and adaptable to rooms of different sizes.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>A prime reason to shoot Kodachrome is its proven archival stability. What I do know, from first hand experience, is that of all my 30+ year old color film material only Kodakchrome has not deteriorated.</p>

<p>Much as I respect Wilhelm, they don't have a time machine to use as a test fixture. It wouldn't surprise me at all if current E6 material is as fade resistant in dark storage as they say. However, if the goal is archiving, then the epsilon probability that Wilhelm's methodology does not reflect real aging processes is material.</p>

[steven_d._johnson]

<p>As far as archival quality, we must be doing something right as the only slides that have lost thier richness and faded pink or other were not Kodachrome. Most everything else over 25 years old, Ektachrome included, (but certainly not as much), has had some color change. The slides are stored in viewing sheets, carousel trays or metal cases and all are kept inside. Much to my wife's annoyance, I've left good furnishings in the garage from time to time as I expand my film empire. Personally, I've never seen a faded Kodachrome slide, but I know that there MUST be some out there. I wouldn't doubt that one bit! I do have four slides that I found taken at March Field (USAF) in the late 1950's that are crazed from heat, probably, but they have good color.<br>

*<br>

As far as projection is concerned, getting a projector IS sage advice if you don't have one now- and they are cheap. I like the AMT's also, as they are great for dissolve shows, and the variable timer keeps the slide show moving at a gental rate. If I'm not mistaken, those fine machines were among the last Ektagraphic equipment made. They are also relatively easy to service and overhaul, too! Currently, I have several other Kodak projectors that probably WILL wind up in a bad place because as the previous poster mentioned, the cost to ship outweighs the time and effort. These are the older models from the 1960's and 70's. Yet, I like those because they were built like brick s***houses. I like the Golden Navitar optics, and use the 6-9 inch f 3,5 as well as the 70-125 f,2.8 sets for dissolve shows. For home projection, I use the Schneider Vario-Prolux MC 70-210 f 2,8 and the Kodak lenses that came with the AMT's, and they all seem to do just fine. Always a tragedy when good images are ruined by cheap lenses!!! <br>

*<br>

I find using the high-intensity lamp modules also help significantly, but I like to limit projection time for fear of heat and extreme light intensity may damage the slide. I used to have a really nice Da-Lite (sic) screen, but it finally yellowed and the new screens they make seem whiter, but not made with the crystal reflective coating that the old ones had that which I like. I'm not sure why they did that...?<br>

*<br>

For those of you who don't have a projector, like the man said, GET ONE...now! All of the equipment I use and mentioned above, sans the new da-lite screen, can be found at on-line auction sites for almost 'scrap weight' prices as fools rush to digital photography.<br>

*<br>

Finally, I included a roll of PKR in yesterday's order from B&H. I'm going to try it again!</p>