View Full Version : Can we save Kodachrome?
dave lackey
07-21-2008, 09:13
Silly question? Perhaps, but it seems that we, as active film users, could order and shoot as much Kodachrome as possible rather than sitting back waiting for the inevitable.:mad:
I wonder how many active film users there are around and if a substantial number ordered, say 5-10 rolls on a monthly basis, if it would help Kodak continue to manufacture Kodachrome?
I just ordered 6 rolls myself this morning.
Last time the numbers were posted, Dwayne's was still processing over 1000 rolls per day.
There's speculation that government/military use is what's really keeping Kodachrome alive, but I don't have anything solid to back this up.
I think most of us now regard Kodachrome as a "special occasion" film and shoot regularly with other favorites. As to your numbers, yes, I'm a Kodachrome fan, but I don't think I've purchased 5 rolls over the past year, and I don't think I would be one who would purchase and shoot 5-10 per month without some very meaningful reason to do so.
Well, I bought 30 rolls to take to Thailand with me a couple of months ago and shot them all - I'm waiting for them to come back from Dwayne's now (the long way round, via Switzerland to the UK). It was my plan to buy the same for my next trip in September, but I just scanned a few older rolls and got a nasty magenta cast from them, so it all depends on how well the latest ones scan when I get them back.
sepiareverb
07-21-2008, 10:13
I go through about 10 to 15 rolls every year. Just got some back from Dwaynes today.
SolaresLarrave
07-21-2008, 10:31
We couldn't save Kodak B&W paper, why would we think we could save Kodachrome? Kodak will simply switch off production one day without notice.
Alas, but true... The beancounters run this world now, and they decide, not the consumers. They already did away with the ISO 25 and 200 K-chromes, so the more traditional one has some time to go, but not much.
I've gotten a bluish cast from K-chrome. PS can remove it, but in reality, it's something that old film shows. You probably were shooting some vintage stuff (from the mid eighties or so). At least, that was my case. I've learned now, and will buy fresher film in the future.
Just shoot it while you can and hope for the best. That's what I do.
oftheherd
07-21-2008, 11:01
I haven't shot Kodachrome in many years. It used to be my favorite film. Kodachrome 25 could be enlarged to mural size and you could pick out minor details. Especially if used on a tripod.
I once shot a large poster board, probably 4' by 5' that was covered with 3x5 prints. The prints had hand printing in the lower margins. You could project that on a screen larger than the poster board, and read the printing clearly. No distortion from the enlargement. The pictures could be seen clearly as well. Impressive.
But, I lost my projector in a fire that also damaged my 8-10 K slides. Over the years, the paradigm changed. Now we have monitors and digital with ink jet printers. Kodachrome, as great as it is, doesn't fit in that paradigm. And only one place in the world processing that film, and it isn't Kodak. Sad.
sepiareverb
07-21-2008, 11:06
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/01_027.jpg
CLE / 40 Summicron / K64
I love this nostalgic look. Run & scanned by Dwayne's.
wlewisiii
07-21-2008, 11:13
No, we can't. Shoot it while it lasts & mourn it when it's gone. The only thing that could possibly save it is if Kodak spins off the film division before it's cancelled and the machinery scrapped. And we can't do anything about that absent several billions of USD.
William
35mmdelux
07-21-2008, 11:18
i just processed 25 rolls of k-200 from dwayne's. my mp is loaded with k-64 right now.
Kodak will simply switch off production one day without notice.
They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that Kodak is now doing one coating batch of Kodachrome per year. My speculation is that something will go wrong somewhere in the process one year, and that Kodak will consider it too expensive to work through and abandon the line at that time ...
... assuming ...
... that they don't have contractual obligations which we, the Teeming Millions, do not know of, which might be extending the life of Kodachrome.
shadowfox
07-21-2008, 13:09
- "Shoot with Kodachrome"- Day :D
- Annual Kodachrome Convention (somewhere in Las Vegas :cool:)
- Kodachrome Contests, sponsored by boutique camera retailers, prize? an RF lens/camera with a fresh batch of K64 of course.
mackigator
07-21-2008, 13:28
@oscroft: I have to use different settings on my Coolscan 5000 to get it scanned without the cast. But it does scan for me once I remember to treat it differently.
- Annual Kodachrome Convention (somewhere in Las Vegas :cool:)
(>>PERK!<<)
Oh really?
Any info?
Harry Lime
07-21-2008, 14:46
What I really would like to see is the return or older versions of Kodachrome from a few decades ago... gorgeous looking stuff. Reminds me of 3-strip Technicolor.
My best advise, if you love K64, is to shoot shoot shoot. The more film they sell the more likely it is to stick around longer. I too love Kodachrome, I have a 50 pack in my frige right now, but I haven't been shooting it much as I have become so accustomed to using my M8 and the instant gratification digital provides.
This weekend, it's Kodachrome! Lets all keep Dwaynes good and busy!
Kent
I shoot Kodachrome because it's the best way to get Kodachrome color. Afterwards I scan it. Not any harder than E6 really, I don't know where this "hard to scan" line comes from. Try disabling ICE maybe? :)
35mmdelux
07-21-2008, 16:20
What are folks shooting Kodachrome doing with it these days? Back in the 60's and 70's we were big on slide shows, and of course it was the gold standard for magazine reproduction, but I've not seen anyone with a projector in years and magazines want digital now.. It's difficult to scan well, so I would think color negative film would be easier. I know I stopped shooting it to any degree years ago. Just kind of curious.
Archival purposes, the beautiful color, film at edge of history, legacy. Today its more about documentation and an effort to leave a body of work in Kodachrome and Ilford HP-5. My decendents will appreciate it long after the other film types have faded.
A hundred years from now...
Dante_Stella
07-21-2008, 16:56
Kodachrome was the best slide film of its day (and even was when I started taking serious pictures in the mid-1980s). But today, it's an expensive film with a narrow dynamic range and low tolerance for exposure errors. It's not surprising that pros have fled for digital - you can get all the benefits and burdens - just faster and cheaper.
The archival aspect isn't going to mean anything when there is no equipment to read a piece of Kodachrome film as anything other than a 24x36mm curiosity.
-- Cibachrome is a lost process.
-- Ektalure is out of production.
-- Serious slide projectors are out of production.
-- Old slide projectors go bad - and no one fixes them.
-- Slide scanners won't be made forever.
-- Labs are abandoning film processing. Ask your Frontier operator.
Yesterday, on a plane, I saw in the in-flight magazine an ad for a cheap ($99) machine to "scan" slides and negatives. Once a bunch of these are sold, you can bet that tons of slides are going to end up in the trash. Less market for printing or scanning in the future... and no demand means no service. Or really expensive service. It will be like printing daguerreotypes today.
And these are problems that can arise with no abuse (or action by Kodak) whatsoever. You can also get latent fingerprints that etch in - as well as fungus. Slide mounts warp and separate over time. Are you going to sit there with a huge box of Pakon or Gepe mounts and remount everything? Do you even know where you are going to get those mounts 20 years from now?
I recently had the overwhelming task of assembling the thousands of Kodachromes (which aged well), Ektachromes (aged poorly), and Eastman Color transparencies (forget it...) within my family to assemble them for electronic archiving. There were more than 8,000 slides. As a practical matter, I realized that unless these were digitized, there was no realistic likelihood they would ever be seen again. It was sad (and felt like the end of an era), but true to Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's observation that to stay the same, things must change.
Dante
All true Dante, but a slide projector is very low tech. Certainly inside the realm of 21st century garage technology.
35mmdelux
07-21-2008, 17:35
I'm afraid a 100 years from now, our descendants will find film little more than a curiosity, of no practical value. Especially negatives, which can't be held up to a light and enjoyed.
I am sure they said this 150 years ago when they were shooting glass plates. I am glad Brady plowed ahead and recorded the American Civil War and captured images of the great Abraham Lincoln. We owe his vision and preserverance a debt of gratitude.
I'm going to disagree here - I'm currently using a desktop scanner to get old kodachromes into flickr, etc and make small prints and it's fine quality. I assume there will always be flatbed scanners as long as there is printed material, which I think there will be for a very long time.
There are so many negatives and slides in existence that there will be a market for equipment to scan this media. I was in Sears recently, they still sell turntables in the electronics section.
The archival aspect isn't going to mean anything when there is no equipment to read a piece of Kodachrome film as anything other than a 24x36mm curiosity.
So, there is no way 22nd century technology would be up to projecting or scanning a 35mm frame? Depressing thought.
35mmdelux
07-21-2008, 17:49
.. little more than a curiosity, of no practical value. Especially negatives, which can't be held up to a light and enjoyed.
since when does art, any art, have practical value? We shoot because we want to and if in this journey we are lucky to capture one beautiful image to some of us it was worth it.
I shoot Kodachrome because of what I said above. You may chose to shoot Walmart Gold. You may also chose to wear polyester suits and dine at McDonalds or your local fast food establishment. Life is about choices in an uncertain span of time.
When my parents died, having the ability to archive some fotos became more important to me. When I meet famous leaders, archival ability is important to me. Some of course may chose to argue the nuances of digital and what may/may not occur in the future. I do not have such a crystal ball. I only try to do my best here and today. Whatever the pessimism, Kodachrome renders beautiful colors and this is all I really care about.
Look what just happened to us with HIE - a much greater loss than Kodachrome will be in my opinion. But at least you could have stocked up on HIE and still develop it - when Kodachrome is gone, Dwayne's will shut down the line as well.
Kodak will not be swayed. But Hopefully there will always be MangoFalls...
http://www.mangofalls.com/images/20060414225013_poodle-dress0043.jpg
http://www.mangofalls.com/images/20060726215436_cover-girl0313.jpg
noimmunity
07-21-2008, 18:04
since when does art, any art, have practical value?
it's OT, but here goes: While art may not have practical value, the connection between advancements in optical technology and warfare (or security and population control) is integral, very well documented, and as lucrative as it is destructive.
Love the MangoFalls (?) beach photo!!!
Our grand-grand children will likely be not some green-skinned alien hedonists, but sentient human beings, conscious adults, just like you and me. Who can be interested in a multitude of things, and given population figures there will be substantial interest in any random thing imagined.
35mmdelux
07-21-2008, 18:18
Eugene, how many glass plates do you have in your home? How many nitrocellulose negatives from your great-grandparents? How many Autochromes?
There is just a point beyond which technology is no longer "practically' accessible for the average person.
Your pessimism is not holding water Leicasniper. Your argument insists on "practically accessible for the average person." Do I need to say more? In art this is considered an oxymoron. By analogy you are confusing Michael Jackson with the opera, brandy with Courvisier.
sepiareverb
07-22-2008, 03:02
To assume that our great-grandchildren will have the least interest in small squares of acetate is a giant leap of faith.
Bet your ancestors are real glad you came along :eek: Tossed out all those pictures of great-grandma holding your dear sweet mother? Family pictures is one area where these small squares of acetate do still have real value. Every semester I have students bring in old family negatives wanting to see them printed, asking how to fit some 6x9 or 4x4 neg into the enlarger. For all the world I don't see how even the above average digital snapshooter will have any record for their great-grandchildren.
@oscroft: I have to use different settings on my Coolscan 5000 to get it scanned without the cast. But it does scan for me once I remember to treat it differently.
I found that tricky, because the amount of magenta doesn't seem to be consistent, so each individual photo needs a slightly different treatment. It's actually quite easy to rectify afterwards, but it's a serious inconvenience because I have lots of old slides to scan, together with another 50-100 new rolls a year - and I'm only in the same country as my scanner for half the year.
It also seems to me that Kodachrome from different eras scans differently. My rolls that gave me a magenta cast were from the 90s, and I'm now scanning some 1986 rolls that are giving me a slight blue cast (as other people have experienced).
So overall, much as I love Kodachrome, if something like Sensia 100 gives me simpler and consistent scanning (and it's really very good), then I'll probably rely on that longer term. But as I say, I'll wait and see how my latest 30 rolls of KR turn out.
dave lackey
07-22-2008, 04:26
Well,
My slides from the 60's are stunning even today. I just picked up a slide projector to go back over them just for fun. Come to think of it, that is what slides have always been about!
20 years from now, my old 50-year old slides will be fine and my slides shot this week will be as well.
20 years from now, are my CD's full of thousands of images going to be okay? Who knows? What technology will be around then and am I going to convert all of those? No way!
What I do know is that I am damned tired of digital images because I work with PS 10 hours a day at work and film is for fun! Going back to slides and projectors is way more fun than sitting in front of the photoshop screen!
So, I pose the second question, why in the world would someone NOT want to save Kodachrome? There are still enthusiasts for tin-types, daguerrotypes (sp?) and I would NEVER try to limit their enjoyment of their chosen medium. Seems to me that there are too many people who want to impose THEIR digital preference on ME which I categorically refuse to accept.
That is why I posted this thread...if the flagship film medium, Kodachrome, goes away, we have only ourselves to blame and my kids/grandchildren will be the poorer for it.
So, let's SHOOT and enjoy it!
So, I pose the second question, why in the world would someone NOT want to save Kodachrome?
I really don't think anybody is leading any "Kill Kodachrome" movement, but I think it's mainly because the Teeming Millions just don't have any big burning desire to jump upon the bandwagon to save it.
Most of today's amateur photographers are sooooo in love with their Latest And Greatest DSLR. That notwithstanding, those who shoot film, those who shoot slide film that is, are more likely to prefer the availability and convenience of the various E6 films, such as Fuji {whatever}. You can get that kind of thing off the shelf in most large cities, plus you can usually get same-day E6 processing as well.
Now if I had a few mil. to invest (which I don't) I would look at getting or starting a company to either buy out Kodak's Kodachrome business (which I'm sure they will eventually be willing to sell for one song and one dance, assuming there are buyers) or produce an independent Kodachrome-like film. According to PE over at APUG, Kodak has released their Kodachrome patents and anyone could, if they had the desire and the skill, make a Kodachrome-like film.
victoriapio
07-22-2008, 05:40
What I really would like to see is the return or older versions of Kodachrome from a few decades ago... gorgeous looking stuff. Reminds me of 3-strip Technicolor.
The change in the "qualities" of Kodachrome from the 70s-80s to earlier this century was one of the big reasons I switched over to digital. Not to mention that only one publication I shoot for is still even taking slide submissions, they have all switched to HQ digital.; not to mention that digital slide shows are much easier to produce, not to mention that digital images are much cheaper to create, etc, etc, ect.
But I totally agree with almost everything said in earlier posts about the wonderful attributes of Kodachrome. What a film stock it was, RIP when it finally happens.
O.C.
Ronald_H
07-22-2008, 05:43
Forget Kodachrome, I wouldn't even know where to buy it in my country!
It's getting increasingly difficult to even get E6 processed, and to buy B/W chemistry :(
But now my M2 is CLA'd and my Digiflash is calibrated, I shot some plain Sensia. Ok, my screen broke this weekend, but my bedroom wall still works. Projected my slides with a Rollei projector I got from the supermarket adverts for 10 euros and ENJOYED.
If photography is an artform or just means to an end, I don't know. I don't care either. But my dear old mum is very pleased that the single print that exists from herself as a little girl could be digitally restored and printed. And if I make it to a ripe old age, I hope to see the children of my friends discovering the pics I made from their mum and dad.
I never understood what's so magical about RF's and Leicas. Now I have three RF's, an M2 among them, Maybe I should try Kodachrome too, now it's still there!
The process to produce Kodachrome is so complex that it's simply not practical on a small scale.
I am not a Photo Engineer<tm> by any means, but those who are, most specifically Ron S. on the Kodachrome list and other places, has given me the impression that the formulae for the emulsion layers of Kodachrome are actually simpler than those for the more common E6 and C41 type films. They are in essence sensitized silver-based B&W emulsion layers with no spooky color couplers or anything like that.
There was even some speculation that a Kodachrome-like film could be produced on a machine such as this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/
I'm sure that industrial-grade coating machines would be more practical, however. :)
Another myth that Ron has dispelled is that it's impossible to process Kodachrome on a small scale, and that at minimum a K-Lab machine is needed. He explained that it was not that uncommon to do tank development in the lab, with the tricky parts being two re-exposure steps where the wavelength of the light and the intensity and uniformity of the re-exposure are critical to success. (Hey, if God. and Man. could do it with 1930s technology ...) :)
The way I understand it, the only real exotic chemistry in the process has to do with the CD6 color developer, which is the Magic Potion in the three second developers which drives the dye-formation process.
The one thread I recall concluded that since the CD6 formula is in the patent documents (which have apparently been released to the public domain) anyone "experienced in organic synthesis with access to lab facilities" should be able to make it.
Difficult? Yes.
Practical? You tell me!
Impossible? No! :)
I don't know if scanning 35mm slides will be feasible in 100 years for now but I do know what are the chances of survival of a digital file.
So of course, no perfection, no guaranty, but why in the world should I shoot anything less than than the highest archivability stuff?
Yes, I shoot Kodachrome for all my family stuff. I started after I got interested in digital and understood what can of worms archivability is regarding any stuff other that well processed B&W and Kodachrome. I did my best so my children have good chances to have these pictures available in 50 years from now.
Once I realized I still have a beautifull picture (BW) of my grandparents wedding (40's), Guess what remains of my (colour) wedding picture of my parents ('69)?
What you can do for K survival is to promote it for what it is: the best support if you want to keep your pictures longer thean 20 years. Maybe others, like me, will start using it when they realize that simple fact.
sepiareverb
07-22-2008, 07:12
That long life coupled with when well exposed and processed Kodachrome is beautiful gives us all the more reason to shoot it. Dwayne's will scan it for you, so you can see the pictures on your phone, email them about and store them with the rest of your digital 'archive' ;).
Don't get me wrong, I'd never use Kodachrome for a job with a deadline, digital is king there, but for family pictures I think digital has a long way to go to capture the magic of a slide show in the living room with the lights down and the curtains drawn, some popcorn, and the squeals of laughter seeing grandma in that sexy swimsuit and cats-eye sunglasses. The stories that get told during and after a slide show are fantastic.
Don't get me wrong, I'd never use Kodachrome for a job with a deadline, digital is king there, but for family pictures I think digital has a long way to go to capture the magic of a slide show in the living room with the lights down and the curtains drawn, some popcorn, and the squeals of laughter seeing grandma in that sexy swimsuit and cats-eye sunglasses. The stories that get told during and after a slide show are fantastic.
You should be aware though that kodachrome has very bad archivability when projected. Dark storage conservation is what makes K the king...
... here's a diagram showing the current Kodachrome film and the steps from exposure to finished positive film.
shadowfox
07-22-2008, 08:07
(>>PERK!<<)
Oh really?
Any info?
RE: Kodachrome Convention
Oops, sorry, that's just one of my ideas to answer your question :D
[quote=dmr;860280]Last time the numbers were posted, Dwayne's was still processing over 1000 rolls per day.
If true, that's almost nothing. Minilabs in drugstores are said to need 200 rolls/day to survive.
I have a roll of K64 in my Olympus 35RC right now, and three more in the fridge. This is my first experience with Kodachrome and, admittedly, my main motivation was to try it before it disappeared.
I think there is reason to be mildly optimistic, in the long run. If anything is going to save Kodachrome, or other exotic emulsions, it'll probably be advances in small-scale manufacturing technology that make it practical to achieve similar results profitably on a much, much smaller scale. Thirty years ago things like high-precision CNC machines in a home business were impossible, and now you have a niche market using that technology to make things like reproduction parts for antique cars. By the time film becomes unprofitable for the big names to stay in the marketplace I suspect a clever group of enthusiasts will adapt relatively cheap off-the-shelf technology into a practical film-manufacturing solution.
Harry Lime
07-22-2008, 09:16
What are folks shooting Kodachrome doing with it these days? Back in the 60's and 70's we were big on slide shows, and of course it was the gold standard for magazine reproduction, but I've not seen anyone with a projector in years and magazines want digital now.. It's difficult to scan well, so I would think color negative film would be easier. I know I stopped shooting it to any degree years ago. Just kind of curious.
I stil shoot it for a few reasons
I like the color and contrast rendition
K64 is extremely sharp.
It's very archival. I have Kodachrome slides from my mom that are decades old and they look perfect, unlike my E6 slides, which are only about 20 years old and going fast.
[quote=dmr;860280]Last time the numbers were posted, Dwayne's was still processing over 1000 rolls per day.
If true, that's almost nothing. Minilabs in drugstores are said to need 200 rolls/day to survive.
I think that 1000/day number (I read that somewhere too) is just for Dwayne's Kodachrome lines. They also do E6 and C41. It looks like the three rolls of E6 (120) I had developed last month via Walmart's send-out service all went to Dwayne's. If they have a contract with Walmart then that's a lot of volume to help keep the Kodachrome stuff going.
BTW, that 200 rolls/day number seems a bit high to me. I don't know, though. I can't imagine the local Walmart, Target, Sam's Club, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, etc. all doing that much film every day.
Harry Lime
07-22-2008, 09:26
The archival aspect isn't going to mean anything when there is no equipment to read a piece of Kodachrome film as anything other than a 24x36mm curiosity.
Dante
A developed Kodachrome slide is a low tech item. The technology involved in viewing one can involve as little as a magnifying glass. You can build a projector with a simple lens and lightsource. Flatbed scanners aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
100 years from now it's going to be a lot easier to jerry rig some sort of scanning device to read a slide, than trying to figure out how to read a SONY memory stick or other other electronic storage device.
All over the world museums are still recovering the past from Edison tubes and clay records. These are very low tech items and the means to read them are equally simple. That's why they have survived across time.
J J Kapsberger
07-22-2008, 09:28
My best advise, if you love K64, is to shoot shoot shoot. The more film they sell the more likely it is to stick around longer...
The most pertinent one so far.
With sufficient demand, K-64 will last. There will always be aficionados who will appreciate it. The question is whether there will be enough. But strange and wonderful things have happened before to things left behind in the march of time. As a lutenist, I can assure you of that.
I think this: http://www.kodachromeproject.com/ is an interesting link.
Greetings,
Dirk
Here, as I have posted this before, you can dig deep into the preservation of slides..............:cool:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_18_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf
Mark
UIO
I think this: http://www.kodachromeproject.com/ is an interesting link.
The guy who runs that site posts here on occasion.
I'm kinda surprised he hasn't chimed in, actually ...
I'm going to disagree here - I'm currently using a desktop scanner to get old kodachromes into flickr, etc and make small prints and it's fine quality. I assume there will always be flatbed scanners as long as there is printed material, which I think there will be for a very long time.
There are so many negatives and slides in existence that there will be a market for equipment to scan this media. I was in Sears recently, they still sell turntables in the electronics section.
What special software do I need to scan my kodachromes with a turntable from sears electronics section?
35mmdelux
07-22-2008, 16:59
Technology has never adanced faster than the last hundred years - transportation, radio, TV, atomic age, moon landing, digital age, etc.
A hundred years from now I am certain low cost technologies will revolutionize the photographic medium beyond anything we comprehend today. Who would have thought twenty-years ago that digital technology would take the medium by storm? In its wake, digital technology gave us the scanner and the super-simple desktop darkroom. Who would have thought that today we could scan an old color neg or slide and print an 11 x 14 with impunity? In the nineteenth century which 8x10 shooter could have imagined that a hundred years hence his/hers glass plates could be digitized and made available to the fartest reaches of the globe at a keystroke?
I will continue to do my part and shoot Kodachrome and B&W as much as possible. I will let others decide if they are to be kept or thrown in a heap. Maybe a hundred years from now my great-grandchildren will thank me for leaving a family record.
I have never shot Kodachrome but looking at B&H they have 2 films listed. Kodachrome 64 and a Kodachrome 64 professional. Besides the professional being $4.00 higher whats the difference?
dave lackey
07-23-2008, 15:47
MY take on the situation..."Can we save Kodachrome?"
YES...but more importantly, we MUST!
Every art form/passion needs a poster child and we have it! If we do not embrace the icon of all film photography, we have only ourselves to blame, not Kodak.
I have never shot Kodachrome but looking at B&H they have 2 films listed. Kodachrome 64 and a Kodachrome 64 professional. Besides the professional being $4.00 higher whats the difference?
They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that Kodak's "professional" films are meant to be stored cold and used promptly, in that they are at their "peak" of the aging cycle shortly after shipment, and that their consumer films are shipped before the peak, intending to be stored at room temperature (or worse) until purchase and use. Some will also say that the quality control is a bit tighter for their professional line. Others say it's the same stuff at a higher price. :) That's what "they" tell me, anyway. :)
Can we save Kodachrome? I love it to death, but... no, we can't.
I just got my first batch of Kodachrome back from Dwayne's (it's the first time I've shot any since they stopped processing it here in Europe), and I have mixed feelings...
It only took 2 weeks to go from here (UK) to Switzerland, thence to Dwayne's, and all the way back to me on the reverse journey. That's pretty good.
They all scan on my V700 with a slight magenta cast (as I have mentioned earlier). It's easy to correct post-scan, but I can't correct it by a scanner setting because it's slightly different in each shot. It seems to depend on the actual colour balance of each one - the more blue sky in the shot, the greater the overall magenta cast. But it's easy enough to correct afterwards, so it doesn't bother me all that much.
The look of Kodachrome really is nice. I don't know how to describe it really, but there's a kind of "presence" with KR trannies that you don't get with other films.
But oh, woe - in the US they're still using those horrible card mounts that Kodak abandoned in Europe decades ago?! All my KR slides from the 80s onwards that were processed here are in nice plastic mounts with square corners. And now I have these obsolete abominations thrust back on me, with the stupid round corners that mean you have to lose a significant chunk of the image to get a square scan. And possibly even worse, there are loads of card fibres encroaching into the frame - the edges of the scans are hairy! As I don't send them to Dwayne's directly I can't even ask for it to be processed unmounted, because here in the UK we can only buy KR pre-paid and have to send it back in the supplied envelopes with no options.
Much as I love KR, an even though I can put up with having to send them half way round the world for processing, and I don't really mind the additional effort in removing the magenta cast from the scans, the card mounts are the last straw. I think a sad day is upon me - I think I've shot my last ever Kodachrome.
Harry Lime
07-26-2008, 03:23
They all scan on my V700 with a slight magenta cast (as I have mentioned earlier). It's easy to correct post-scan, but I can't correct it by a scanner setting because it's slightly different in each shot. It seems to depend on the actual colour balance of each one - the more blue sky in the shot, the greater the overall magenta cast. But it's easy enough to correct afterwards, so it doesn't bother me all that much.
I used to shoot a lot of K200 and it would go pink or magenta if your exposure was off by a very small amount, especially in low light situations. That's the big drawback to Kodachrome. Exposures have to be dead on, because of the limited dynamic range.
But of course it can also be the processing. Just before A&I shut down their developing line, I kept getting slides back with a pink hue.
If you don't plan to show them in a slide projector, just ask that they not be mounted.
As I said, I don't have that option - from the UK they're pre-paid and there are no processing options.
Or get some plastic slide mounts and mount them yourself.
That would be just one more chore too much, and puts KR just too far away from the convenience of E6.
I used to shoot a lot of K200 and it would go pink or magenta if your exposure was off by a very small amount, especially in low light situations. That's the big drawback to Kodachrome. Exposures have to be dead on, because of the limited dynamic range.
But of course it can also be the processing.
The magenta cast I see is not visible in the slides themselves when viewed with a slide viewer or projected, so the processing is just fine - it is only there on the scans. And it's there even when the exposures are perfect.
Ronald_H
07-27-2008, 05:57
You can't even get them back unmounted? That s*cks!!! That's probably true for me too then!
I just found out my local camera shop has K64 on their website, although not in store in the shop. One roll costs a cool 14 (fourteen) euros. I sure hope processing is included. For the same amount of money I can get three rolls of perfectly good Fuji Sensia, processing included. But hey, my M2 & cron' weren't cheap either, and now I at least know why people want Leica's ;-)
Alain 91
08-18-2008, 08:15
Hi,
The K25 was my preferred film. For the fun, one of them taken in Iguazu (Brazil) in December 1987 with my F3HP :)
http://www.superpixel.fr/img098reduite.jpg
Ciao
andrewmore
08-18-2008, 08:37
I just got my first batch of Kodachrome back from Dwayne's (it's the first time I've shot any since they stopped processing it here in Europe), and I have mixed feelings...
It only took 2 weeks to go from here (UK) to Switzerland, thence to Dwayne's, and all the way back to me on the reverse journey. That's pretty good.
They all scan on my V700 with a slight magenta cast (as I have mentioned earlier). It's easy to correct post-scan, but I can't correct it by a scanner setting because it's slightly different in each shot. It seems to depend on the actual colour balance of each one - the more blue sky in the shot, the greater the overall magenta cast. But it's easy enough to correct afterwards, so it doesn't bother me all that much.
The look of Kodachrome really is nice. I don't know how to describe it really, but there's a kind of "presence" with KR trannies that you don't get with other films.
But oh, woe - in the US they're still using those horrible card mounts that Kodak abandoned in Europe decades ago?! All my KR slides from the 80s onwards that were processed here are in nice plastic mounts with square corners. And now I have these obsolete abominations thrust back on me, with the stupid round corners that mean you have to lose a significant chunk of the image to get a square scan. And possibly even worse, there are loads of card fibres encroaching into the frame - the edges of the scans are hairy! As I don't send them to Dwayne's directly I can't even ask for it to be processed unmounted, because here in the UK we can only buy KR pre-paid and have to send it back in the supplied envelopes with no options.
Much as I love KR, an even though I can put up with having to send them half way round the world for processing, and I don't really mind the additional effort in removing the magenta cast from the scans, the card mounts are the last straw. I think a sad day is upon me - I think I've shot my last ever Kodachrome.
If you cut the dispatch envelope off along the line indicated and write unmounted in the notes section on the film canister the film will come back unmounted. That's what the cut off line is for. This used to be explained somewhere on the packaging, but I expect Kodak thought that everyboby knew this and when the envelopes were reprinted the instructions got missed off. The card mounts are truly dreadful and the hairy bits get embedded in the film which i suspect gets mounted when slightly damp.
I'm waiting for five rolls to come back. Here in the UK the film is still available through Jessops - they just seem to keep film in a drawer for us oddball users. It also appears that once it is sold their stock control system will automatically top up the supply..
Regards
Andrew More
andrewmore
08-18-2008, 08:41
As I said, I don't have that option - from the UK they're pre-paid and there are no processing options.
That would be just one more chore too much, and puts KR just too far away from the convenience of E6.
(I really must pay more attention when composing replies..)
The reason that Kodak used card mounts (and i expect Wayne's too) is that they don't make the annoying 'chink chink' noise that plastic mounts make when projected in a Kodak Carousel projector - something to do with the vibration from the cooling fan.
Andrew More
Harry Lime
08-18-2008, 08:48
The magenta cast I see is not visible in the slides themselves when viewed with a slide viewer or projected, so the processing is just fine - it is only there on the scans. And it's there even when the exposures are perfect.
Interesting. I wonder why that is.
What scanner and software are you using?
just ordered some Kodachrome :)
Tuolumne
08-18-2008, 11:45
But oh, woe - in the US they're still using those horrible card mounts that Kodak abandoned in Europe decades ago?! All my KR slides from the 80s onwards that were processed here are in nice plastic mounts with square corners. And now I have these obsolete abominations thrust back on me, with the stupid round corners that mean you have to lose a significant chunk of the image to get a square scan. And possibly even worse, there are loads of card fibres encroaching into the frame - the edges of the scans are hairy! As I don't send them to Dwayne's directly I can't even ask for it to be processed unmounted, because here in the UK we can only buy KR pre-paid and have to send it back in the supplied envelopes with no options.
Yes, this is a BIG problem when scanning. And Dwaynes mounts all of their slides in cardboard mounts. Hence, I ask for my slides to be returned to me uncut and unmounted. They are glad to oblige - less work for them. Just include a note with your next order.
/T
Yes, this is a BIG problem when scanning. And Dwaynes mounts all of their slides in cardboard mounts. Hence, I ask for my slides to be returned to me uncut and unmounted. They are glad to oblige - less work for them. Just include a note with your next order.
/T
Same here.
And unmounted films are sooo much more compact to store than mounted trannies.
If you cut the dispatch envelope off along the line indicated and write unmounted in the notes section on the film canister the film will come back unmounted. That's what the cut off line is for. This used to be explained somewhere on the packaging, but I expect Kodak thought that everyboby knew this and when the envelopes were reprinted the instructions got missed off
Oh yes, there's a little corner on the envelope marked with a dotted line. You know, that's stirring vague memories from years ago now - but I never needed unmounted trannies back when they used to come back in slim plastic mounts.
Here in the UK the film is still available through Jessops
It's a lot cheaper at 7dayshop - £6.35 compared to £11.99 at Jessops.
The reason that Kodak used card mounts (and i expect Wayne's too) is that they don't make the annoying 'chink chink' noise that plastic mounts make when projected in a Kodak Carousel projector - something to do with the vibration from the cooling fan
Interesting - I wonder why they abandoned card mounts in the UK then.
The magenta cast I see is not visible in the slides themselves when viewed with a slide viewer or projected, so the processing is just fine - it is only there on the scans. And it's there even when the exposures are perfect
Interesting. I wonder why that is.
What scanner and software are you using?
Epson V700 and Epson Scan s/w (I'd try other s/w, but I need the speed of scanning 12 at a time).
But today, it's an expensive film with a narrow dynamic range and low tolerance for exposure errors. It's not surprising that pros have fled for digital - you can get all the benefits and burdens - just faster and cheaper.
Well, not all pros have to go faster and cheaper. A lot of them that are in specific areas of professional photography often get to or even insist on shooting both.
The best part of Kodachrome for me are the limits it imposes on you. I shoot in the order of 200,000 digital images a year and I can say with impunity that shooting Kodachrome is like running on pavement and digital like running in sand. You simply hit a very definite limit in which you can play off of and get in sync with.
If one looks at the work of jay Maisel, Eric Meola, Enrst Haas, Bill Allard and so on, quite often you can see where the limits helped to create the look.
But you have to learn to see light in "Kodachrome". And the price, this is a priceless film we are talking about here, I have invested tens of thousands in the gear alone just to shoot it at the level that is deserves.
Kodachrome is not for everyone. You have to be patient and dedicated and then believe me, you will be aptly rewarded.
And as far as the seemingly never ending need for more dynamic range, I could care less. I like images that transcend light's ability to bounce and envelope something. Increased dynamic range seems to flatten that out and badly.
Kodachrome on the other hand is the closest thing to an Old Master's painting I have ever experienced.
I sat up and looked at a new batch from Seattle last night, mind blowing good film.
I also just ordered 100 rolls from Freestyle today as well.
And minor processing glitches here and there? Dude....it is going to take a hell of a lot more than that to stop me from shooting it.
Kodachrome is the real deal, either you are real good or you are not and the film will never hide that.
I doubt we can save it, but I know I am doing right by it by dedicating my self to it like I am now.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.