Kodachrome slides with square images: always printing off underexposed

[phil_horton1]

<p>Hey,<br /><br />I've worked with Kodachrome slides before, but never like these. The images are perfectly square, which is no good as my current slide reader won't capture the sides of these slides. I've been scanning them instead. However, either way the slide appears underexposed.<br>

Is this because the slides weren't developed properly, or do I need to do something special to have them printed off correctly?<br>

-Thanks</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Square would be 126 or 127, and as far as I know there wasn't ever 127 Kodachrome. (There was 120 Kodachrome, which would need bigger than 2x2 mounts.)<br>

I one time brought a roll of 126 Kodachrome and a cheap enough instamatic camera on a canoe trip. That way, I wouldn't worry so much if it fell in the water. (Maybe even in a plastic bag.)<br>

If it was from a cheap non-adjustable camera, they could easily be underexposed.<br>

Can you post something to look at? A scan, or maybe a picture of a slide?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If the scanner is reading the slide mount, the white cardboard or plastic is causing the underexposure. Increase the exposure by a full stop and re-evaluate. I have the same challenge scanning my grandparents' large collection of 126 Instamatic Kodachromes in my 35mm scanner. I have to adjust the exposure to compensate for the white cardboard Kodak mounts, and manually crop each later.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Some slide scanners (which are you using?) have software that will allow more sophisticated automatic cropping, or can be reset manually to the dimensions of your slides.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Horton....</p>

<p>If the image is a little less than 1” square it could be made with a Stereo Realist type camera or a Robot brand non-stereo camera on 35mm Kodachrome film. </p>

<p>If you are trying to scan them in a dedicated slide scanner, many scanners will factor in its calculated exposure the slide mount part that would normally be in a 35mm slide frame. This usually results in a bad scan exposure. With some dedicated slide scanners such as the Nikon 5000, you can overcome this by using your pointer to bring in the sides of the usual scan area to the edges of the image. With other scanners such as the Nikon IV ED it improves the results a little but can still give off exposure and/or off color slides. </p>

<p>If you use an Epson brand flatbed scanner with the top backlight, just adjust the scan area to the film area and you should get acceptable results. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Herrmannsfeldt...</p>

<p>Kodachrome from beginning to end was always available in roll film cut to 35mm widths. This included, at various time periods, the standard 135 size, the 828 size and the 126 size. </p>

<p>Kodachrome was also made in the popular 16mm movie format which was sometimes sold as 8mm by using a splitter. Some re-branders re-spooled and sometimes re-cut this film for use in micro cameras such as the Minox. </p>

<p>For a short time in the 80s Kodachrome was available in 120 size, 64 speed. I can find no evidence that 127 was even test marketed. Some may have been made for in house use as an experiment? I have seen 127 Kodachrome slides in 127 mounts. They were made by using a Mamiya film punch that punched a 127 size chunk out of 120 Kodachrome. In a way it was kind of interesting. In another way it was a shame to deface some of the rare 120 Kodachrome slides taken with a quality lensed camera. </p>

<p>Additionally, in the late 30s, 40s, and early 50s Kodachrome was available in sheet film sizes. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

For brief time in the late '80s and early '90s, maybe longer, Kodak made PKR-64 (Pro Kodachrome 64) and Pro

Kodachrome 200 in 120 rolls so it is possible the OP is asking about 6x6cm Kodachromes. It was a great and beautiful

film and fun to shoot, but by then Qualex's processing was really starting to go downhill.

[James G. Dainis]

These are slides, positive images. Can't you just hold the slide up to the light or on a light box and see if it is underexposed?

[glen_h]

<p>I was assuming from the original question that it was in Kodak paper mounts that said "Kodachrome" on the side.<br>

As far as I know, those were not made in 127 size, such that one could punch an appropriate sized part from 120 film. <br>

Did Kodak make mounts for single frames of stereo film?<br>

828 is rectangular, as are all the movie film formats that I know of.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>If the scanner is reading the slide mount, the white cardboard or plastic is causing the underexposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />That was my first thought - but if it is scanning the mount using light above it, it would see it as black rather than white so any auto setting would increase exposure to compensate, leading to lighter images rather than darker.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>In any case, hopefully it isn't averaging over the whole frame.<br>

That is what we did with camera meters years ago. <br>

If it is an actual scanner (moving across the frame) it wouldn't naturally do averaging, anyway.</p>

 

[art_thomas1]

<p>To Ellis Verner-</p>

<p>I’ve never heard of Kodachrome 200 sold commercially in ASA 200 speed. Could you possibly share your source of information with? </p>

<p>To Ron Andrews- </p>

<p>You have a vast knowledge of Kodachrome. Have you heard of Kodachrome being sold as ASA 200 Pro, please? </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I did shot a roll of Kodachrome 200 in 2002 when I bought my Nikon F5 just to check it out. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

It wasn't my favorite Kodachrome. The grain was coarse, but it was better than Ektachrome 400. My source of knowledge

is my own experiences with it and also a photographer I worked for briefly in 1988, Peter B. Kaplan of NYC, shot ithe

35mm version regularly. I thnk I first shot it as part of the official Statue of Lberty / Ellis Island redication photography crew

on the July 4 weekend in 1986.

 

Peter for awhile used a Kodachrome lab in NYC called New York Filmworks, they could push, pull and balance or shift

color for short runs. I got to watch them run Kodachrome once. Except for the first part of the process it didn't have to be

done in the dark. What a lot of people don't know about Kodachrome is that the color dyes were not in the film but were

added during the processing. Two chemists were required to run the film. You could really shift the color a lot.

 

I may be wrong about there being a 120 roll film version that was ever sold.

 

Here's Eastman Kodak's data sheet on K'chrome 25, 64, and 200:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pdf

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I’ve never heard of Kodachrome 200"<br /><br />Kodachrome 200 was part of the standard lineup of Kodachrome for many years. Used it a number of times myself. One of my John Shaw nature photography books has several photos credited to Kodachrome 200.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>"I’ve never heard of Kodachrome 200"</p>

<p>I miss typed. I meant to type Kodachrome 120 in ASA 200 speed. I used the 35mm 200 ASA version to take indoor Stereo Realist pictures in the Rio Casino Las Vegas. I needed F: to go some distance when photographing their parade without having a flash the power of a searchlight. I also tried some in Key West on a bright day. For some reason the grain looked larger in the sunlight than flash light??? I do not know the reason. Still in both situations, the grain was like a much older 200 speed film. </p>

<p>Now as to the question I was trying to ask.. Has anybody seen evidence of Kodachrome 200 in 120 size, please? </p>

[glen_h]

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e88/</p>

<p>indicates KR and KL (64 and 200) in 135-36 form, and that KM (25) was discontinued.<br>

I think that means that 120 size was already discontinued. </p>