Actually... Kodachrome Sucked

[Frank Petronio]

It's a tribute to Kodak that they kept it going for twenty years longer then they needed too, the sentimental old corporate goofballs that they are.

Seriously, it was great for the 30s and 40s but Geezum Crow, the color wasn't "realistic" or "pleasing" -- it was surreal and bizarre. Just because people got accustomed to it doesn't mean it was all that great... it just points to our adaptability and ability to rationalize almost anything.

[dave lackey]

Works just great for retorspective photography. Fine with me!:)

[robklurfield]

Frank, you are the iconoclasts' iconoclast.

Rearview mirrors should perhaps bear the message "things in the past look better now than they did then; exercise caution."

[berlincontemporary]

Could someone point us to some examples of the Kodachrome "look"? Because I always fail to see whats special about it.

[dmr]

but Geezum Crow, the color wasn't "realistic" or "pleasing" -- it was surreal and bizarre.

Uh, we may have to agree to disagree on that!

[majid]

I can't say I love the Kodachrome palette, but until the advent of Velvia in 1990, it was far superior to the horrendous Ektachrome and Fujichrome E6 emulsions available, not to mention far longer lasting in dark storage.

People like Steve McCurry or Galen Rowell have shown what you can do with Kodachrome, color-wise.

[dave lackey]

Ahhh... Galen Rowell, one of my favorite photographers. Actually a master of Kodachrome!

http://www.royalalbertamuseum.ca/gallery/retro/_pdf/rowellmed.pdf

Who can argue with these results? Or National Geographics?

Sucked? Whatever.

[Neare]

Who wants "realistic" colours when shooting colour film? I know the people certainly don't, people love fancy slightly off colours when looking at regular scenes. People like overly warm tones or excentuated blues in colour photography. Realism is boring to the people viewing the photography, just take a look at the successful photographers nowadays and look at their colour palette.
Kodachrome worked well, I do agree though that it was probably overrated for all the trouble it took to get it through its proper dev process.

[tlitody]

So we all live in our own little fantasy world. And ?

[jsrockit]

It certainly had a distinctive look... and it isn't always about realistic results.

[dmr]

The term I've been looking for to describe the look of Kodachrome was finally used by another person on another system. "Stained Glass."

[Brian Sweeney]

Stained Glass. Have to think about that one.

from 2010

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=166&pictureid=3184

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=274&pictureid=3182

from 1984

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=2886

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=2881

[Chris101]

I, myself, like bizarre and surreal.

[dmr]

Stained Glass. Have to think about that one.

It was on either Kodachrome Project or APUG. Just felt like the right analogy.

Actually, I do like the way Kodachrome renders colors. Very much! No, it does not suck!

Kodachrome shows you the colors the way they are, not the way somebody might want them to be. Natural looking, to me, anyway. Definitely not like an explosion in a paint factory! :)

[sepiareverb]

I found the last several batches I used to be much different. I don't know if it was Dwaynes processing or the film- but color was less saturated. I used to shoot LOTS of K64 when I did stock, and they just haven't had the same pop they used to.

[xwhatsit]

Stained glass! Absolutely!

I shot my first (and obviously last) roll in mid-December, with pretty low expectations. The film was a wee bit expired, didn't want to get my hopes too far up in case I missed the deadline, and with the level of hype around about it, I thought it couldn't be as good as everybody described.

Got the slides earlier this week, was absolutely blown away. Certainly didn't suck! Reds vastly saturated and exaggerated, the rich greens... all completely false, but they definitely make a beautiful picture.

People love unrealism in pictures. B&W is perhaps the most unrealistic of all, of course, but it's not listed as a limitation of the technique. If you want to make copies of reality then that's fine, but grain, type of colour film/B&W tonality, all affect how the image looks. Choice of which film is like choosing which palette you'd like to paint the picture with.

To me, all slide films seem to look grossly unrealistic, "surreal and bizarre". Partly the colours, but especially the limited dynamic range. And the method of viewing too; glowing on a slide viewer, projected on a wall, or scanned in (and looking different again). Colour negative seems to match reality the closest to my eyes, with its huge dynamic range (boy do I want to shoot some Vision 3 500T!) and much more natural palette. That doesn't make it any better or prettier for taking a photo with though! Just a different aesthetic.

[rbsinto]

My first colour slide film was Kodachrome, back around 1977, which I shot at the suggestion of a pro Photobud.
"Get a roll of Kodachrome, shoot red mailboxes and bracket to learn about exposure."
I bought, I shot, I bracketed, I learned.
Nice film, but what turned me away from it was sheer laziness. I couldn't be bothered to either schlepp or mail the stuff to Kodak for development, and finally settled on E-6 stocks (originally Ektachrome, and finally Fujichrome) which is essentially all I shoot to this day.

[SolaresLarrave]

Kodachrome was an excellent film... but the "problem" came with skin tone rendition. That's where some would differ. I liked the "Technicolor" look I got, but there were people for whom it was too pink.

Leaving this aside, I liked the relatively subdued palette of Kodachrome, in which intense colors were intense, and pastels looked realistic and pleasant. I only used Velvia and Reala each once because I wasn't blown away by their intense saturation... and returned to Kodachrome always.

But to each his own. If Frank doesn't like Kodachrome that's perfectly fine. I do. Take care!

[Brian Levy]

I loved the Kodachrome 25 (old formula) but the new formula K64 was good but not in the same league. Still overall, I found both to come closer to the actual subject in color and tonality than any other slide file I tried. Sadly, most slide film is like digital; over saturated and contrasty.

[Joe Brugger]

Xwhatsis hit the nail on the head. Pretty pictures, but not necessarily reality.

[Luddite Frank]

If the look of Kodachrome was "surreal and bizarre", at least it was a warm and friendly look.... I find the Fuji and Kodak VC films to be more saturated, but somehow cold and artificial-looking.

In the right hands, Kodachrome was simply magnificent.

I shot the bulk of my K-chrome in the mid 1980's, with a Kodak Retina IIIc outfit...

The bulk of my shots were average in terms of color, but some were absolutely glorious.

I will post some of my "last fling" Kodachrome shots from this fall when I get them scanned.

[dave lackey]

In general, reality pretty much sucks. That is why I have been described as a romantic.:p

[KM-25]

The term I've been looking for to describe the look of Kodachrome was finally used by another person on another system. "Stained Glass."

That person shot the very last frames of Kodachrome ever on Tuesday, the full term he used can be found here:

http://www.newsweek.com/video/2011/01/04/kodachrome-a-little-stained-glass-window-of-truth.html

I found that the only time Kodachrome sucked is when I sucked.

[cidereye]

In general, reality pretty much sucks. That is why I have been described as a romantic.:p
Hence why *realistic* films over the years have never really sold well, many have bombed in no time since their launch. (Apart from film used for portraiture, weddings, skin tone etc obviously)

People rave about Velvia, I love it too for certain things, but can anybody honestly say Velvia is realistic? It's got a Walt Disney cartoon colour palate! :D

And B&W, oh come on! We see in colour for goodness sake, so how realistic is B&W? It's totally surreal when you think about it yet we LOVE it, rave about it and firmly embrace it in all it's glory!

Reality? Nah, you can keep it because most of the time it sucks and is most of the time not what photography is really about! :p

[dmr]

People rave about Velvia, I love it too for certain things, but can anybody honestly say Velvia is realistic? It's got a Walt Disney cartoon colour palate! :D

Explosion in a paint factory. :)

[mikhail33]

I just regret not using film earlier and not getting to try this famous film..

[hatidua]

I recall a similar discussion that came up shortly after the advent of Velvia. The best response I heard at the time: "People don't buy reality, they want Disneyland".

In the pre-Photoshop days, Velvia, and the original RF50 (which made Velvia look like B&W) were the only way to really cheaply pump up colors. Sure, you could have the press run a promo piece through twice on the reds, but for work being published in magazines and such, using those punchy films was the only way to keep many art directors happy.

[sonofdanang]

Heh, heh, heh, heh...

[rogerzilla]

I used to shoot Kodachrome all the time. The 25 was too slow to be useful and had washed-out colours. The 64 was pretty good, probably sharper than Ektachrome 100 of the same era, but still a bit slow unless the sun was out. The 200 was terrible; it took them about 40 years to develop it and then it turned out to be a grainy horror. I think Velvia killed off 25 and 64, and 200 should have been strangled at birth.

The best thing about it was the consistent processing and the little yellow envelope.

[steveyork]

I liked it, although it was hard to scan. I think a lot of the "odd ball" coloring may be due to poor scans.

[roboflick]

Kodachrome 25 shot in my RBT S1 and Stereo Realist stereo cameras has a sharp super realistic quality nearly grainless. Looks as good as fuji astia in medium format. Good for people but not objects or landscapes. I got to shoot a few rolls of it before dwaynes stopped processing it and I am glad I did. Sad that it is a relic of history now. Fuji astia is now also discontinued, but I managed to stock up on expired film from ebay
Nik
Now go shoot some slide film!

[gdmcclintock]

What's this about photography and reality? Since when do photographs represent reality? Photographs are about vision. Cameras and film (or digital sensors) are a technical means to represent (and perhaps attain) vision.

[Ted2001]

I loved Kodachrome 25 (with my F3HP at ISO 32) until Velvia 50 came out and I wanted the extra speed! Wonderful stuff, just got to be too expensive.

[DanOnRoute66]

"Washed-out"? Is that another way of saying "Overexposed"?