Kodachrome, how difficult was it for a pro to work with?

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 in my college days using my Konica Auto S2. I even once got some that was out of date by a year and the colors were still excellent. Didn't care as much for the Kodachrome 64, though. When I needed more speed I used High Speed Ektachrome or Fujichrome R100. </p>

[waldo_lee]

<p>Greg's photo of the Trans International jet is a stunner by any standard.</p>

<p>I did a couple of photo books with Kodachrome 64. In those days you used your noggin more and relied on automation less, and I still like working that way. Your brain is fast if you know your tools, especially without all of today's camera "features" to clutter the process.</p>

<p>In the 60s flash was done by guide numbers which you knew by heart, or if you didn't, there were tables or simple calculators ready at hand. For direct flash, guide numbers have the advantage of avoiding "subject failure," which can fool meters.</p>

<p>Someone wrote that E-6 processing was available in the 1960s. If memory serves, Kodak in the 1960s offered either Kodachrome processing or E-3. E-6 didn't arrive until the mid-1970s with E-4 in between.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Back to the original question:<br>

<br /> From my experience on a small daily in the 1970s -- no one there shot Kodachrome for publication. Processing time lag was too great (down to Palo Alto and back) and then slides would have to be sent out for separations. Although our press was color-capable, the set-up time and general economics made no sense for 99% of cases.<br>

<br /> Film was Tri-X in HC-110. Cameras were 35mm SLRs and Mamiya TLRs, both hooked when needed to Honeywell Strobonars that were powerful and reliable. Ours ran from separate battery packs.<br>

<br /> Fujichrome was just appearing. Kodachrome II and the K-12 process disappeared in 1974, replaced by K25, K64 and K-14. The replacements weren't impressive and cost Kodak a lot of goodwill.<br>

<br /> When color printing became more feasible, in the mid-80s, photographers used color neg film and in-house mini-processors. By then I'd moved over to writing and editing, so am less familiar.</p>

<p>The strobist mini-cult is emulating '70s flash techniques. Advances in digital image quality and enhanced ISO reduce the immediate need to add lighting, which doesn't mean that expertly used lighting doesn't make for a better photo.</p>

<p> </p>

[cian_daly]

<p>Thanks everyone for their wonderful responses, I've certainly learned a thing or two and it has dispelled some misconceptions.</p>