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.