Kodachrome with RF?

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
10:21 AM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,486
Location
Atlanta, Ga
View My Gallery
here is my inspiration:

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
Its a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of edu---cation
Hasnt hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama dont take my kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know theyd never match
My sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama dont take my kodachrome away

Here is my question:

Was a Nikon RF possibly used at the time this song was written? And, does anyone currently use Kodachrome with their RF?
 
Yes - in assorted rangefinders from Zorki 4/4k via Voightlander Bessa R to Hasselbald X-pan. As 64 ASA film is slow I tend to save this up for holiday use in the summer in Greece or in bright sunshine here in the UK. The medium speed 200 ASA version is more flexible, but seems to have less intensity.

We have to send our Kodachrome to Switzerland for onward transmission to the USA for processing - it thens follows the reverse route back.

The film is wonderful and the processing system slow but reliable - however DO NOT opt for the film to be developed and mounted. Last year's slides all came back with bits all over the film where it had clearly been mounted when still slightly damp; also the card mounts had rounded internal frames which means that when you scan the slides you lose some of the picture. It took ages playing on the computer to get rid of the imperfections and some were too bad to be salvagable. Choose the develop only option instead.

Regards

Andrew More
 
The only processor left in North America:

http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/index.html

I hear that they develop kodachrome with some black and white chemicals too to make it archival. I think that National Geographic still does some stories with Kodachrome, I know that Alex Webb will shoot it as long as it is around.

I have never used it, but will admit a lot of curiosity. I might take some with me on an upcoming hike. Mailing it directly as a batch to Dwaynes sounds like the best way to go since the US dollar is at par, cost only $7 a roll plus shipping compared to $20 a roll for my local guys to process (read ship) the film.

Post your results here if you do use it!!
 
andrewmore said:
The film is wonderful and the processing system slow but reliable - however DO NOT opt for the film to be developed and mounted. Last year's slides all came back with bits all over the film where it had clearly been mounted when still slightly damp; also the card mounts had rounded internal frames which means that when you scan the slides you lose some of the picture. It took ages playing on the computer to get rid of the imperfections and some were too bad to be salvagable. Choose the develop only option instead.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, I had no idea! I just put a roll through my M2...
 
And, does anyone currently use Kodachrome with their RF?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, on occasion. As I said in a related thread, It's become more of a "special occasion" film for me. I've maybe done 5 rolls a year since 2005 when I started shooting it again.

At the time the tune came out (1972? 1973?), the Nikon F series, SLR, was the "in" camera and I always thought that's what he was referring to, not a RF.

And, not to be a stick in the mud here (sorry), but that tune has never been one of my faves. I always thought of it as yet another commercial pop tune that really didn't do anything for me. I think of it as being one of S&G's (separate or together) weaker numbers. I always considered the Ektachromes of the the era to be more of the "green of summer" films, and definitely not Kodachrome. 🙂

I do love Kodachrome, the film, even the remaining 64 version. I like the look it gives. I also find the process fascinating, even though I'm not a photo chemist by any means.
 
sirius said:
Post your results here if you do use it!!
Click to expand...

Here's a few, if this cut-paste job will work ...

newc14w.jpg


k01-01w.jpg


thiswayw.jpg


kerry1.jpg


All QL17 GIII, K64. Sorry, no Nikon. 🙂
 
Hi dmr, I am not sure if I see specific Kodachrome qualities, but I like the 3rd image a lot.


When I had my QL III 1.7, I tried to take wide open close ups like this, but they never came out this well. Was probably just me, but it's good to know that it is capable.
 
I use it most of the time in my cameras (except the Nikon SLRs, which usually get loaded with Provia or some such faster thing). In fact, I've taken a nice proportion of K-chrome (vis a vis other E-6 film) to every trip I take.

However, I've never used it in my M3. Latitude issues, of course, and the fact that my Leica meters don't have an ASA 64 setting.

Dumb reason, I know... 🙁
 
I shoot both Kodachrome 64 and my dwindling stock of (discontinued) Kodachrome 200 with my M's. Nice match with Leica glass. When Simon's song came out, though, most Nikon shooters I knew were using a Nikkormat, or an F or F2 if they had some real money.
 
ampguy said:
Hi dmr, I am not sure if I see specific Kodachrome qualities, but I like the 3rd image a lot.
Click to expand...

Thanks {blush} 🙂

"This Way" is one of the markers on one of the original sections of the old Lincoln Highway around here.

When I had my QL III 1.7, I tried to take wide open close ups like this, but they never came out this well. Was probably just me, but it's good to know that it is capable.
Click to expand...

The bokeh was intentional. IIRC, it was 1/500, auto exposing so I could open up as wide as possible, which was, IIRC, between 4 and 2.8.
 
dave lackey said:
Hmmmm...how do you guys get those good scans? I just received my Velvia scans from the lab and they are blurry....???
Click to expand...

Well (LOL, actually) I think the key word here is "lab", IMAO! 🙂

I never knew how sucky lab scans were until I got a real negative scanner.

All of those above in my post were done on the KM SD IV, stock KM software, very ordinary PC, all tweaking done in Photoshop.

I still have lab scans done on most of my stuff, then the ones I want a nice print of I'll re-scan.
 
And the M3 seems made for it -- at least on mine, the 50mm frame-line is broad and shaped like the inside of a slide mount, with rounded corners. If I wasn't smoking a pain reliever, I think I read that the framelines were dimensioned to show what such a mount would show at a particular distance -- was it 10 ft, yards, or meters.
 
I have been shooting K64 since I was a kid and now shoot K200. Pretty soon neither will be available and Kodachrome will enter the bastions of history. I use it for archival purposes and because I love its color. Nothing quite like it -- well, maybe except for dye transfer process that is big time labor intensive.

Nat Geo is a leader in the use of photo technology and for decades Kodachrome was the only film they would accept.

I used Kodachrome starting with a Yashica SLR I bought when I was in the Army. In 1991 I began to use it with my newly acquired Leicas. Leica and Kodachrome IS the classic combination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom