Ethics of Kodachrome

[julianphotoart]

What I consider an ethical quandry: I just bought 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64. Never bought it before; I was too chicken. Now, all caution to the wind -- I don't care if I have to send it across-country for development.

For some reason I feel that I owe it to the tradition of this film to use it in a classic camera. How do you feel about that? Kodachrome in a 1958 Konica IIIa? Or go ahead and use it in a totally modern camera?

 

[bmattock]

Well, if you want to make Paul Simon happy, shoot it in a Nikon camera. He didn't specify what kind of Nikon, sadly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

What I consider an ethical quandry: I just bought 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64. Never bought it before; I was too chicken. Now, all caution to the wind -- I don't care if I have to send it across-country for development.

For some reason I feel that I owe it to the tradition of this film to use it in a classic camera. How do you feel about that? Kodachrome in a 1958 Konica IIIa? Or go ahead and use it in a totally modern camera?

What is the "ethical quandary"?

Kodacrhome is a discontinued film. Just hope your 2 rolls are still "good" and shoot away in your long discontinued camera.

What is the "ethical quandary"?

 

[kiev4a]

What I consider an ethical quandry: I just bought 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64. Never bought it before; I was too chicken. Now, all caution to the wind -- I don't care if I have to send it across-country for development.

For some reason I feel that I owe it to the tradition of this film to use it in a classic camera. How do you feel about that? Kodachrome in a 1958 Konica IIIa? Or go ahead and use it in a totally modern camera?

I can remember when Kodachrome 64 was considered fast🙂 Given the slow speed and the lack of latitude of slide film, I would use the most modern equipment with the most sensitive metering possible if shooting Kodachrome. I don't believe it's a question of ethics.

 

[rovnguy]

Meter, meter, meter. Oh yeah... bracket, bracket, bracket. Bracket in 1/3 stop increments.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

For some reason I feel that I owe it to the tradition of this film to use it in a classic camera. How do you feel about that? Kodachrome in a 1958 Konica IIIa? Or go ahead and use it in a totally modern camera?

I thought that there was some report of some sort of sweat-shop labor involved in the manufacture of Kodachrome or something, going by the title. Silly me.

I'd use a lens from the 1950s. A collapsible Summicron, Elmar, a Zeiss Ikonta/Contessa, Kodak Retina ... but the resolution of this film would be wasted.

I would actually try a 1960-1970's Nikon set up, or early Leica-R (Leicaflex and/or old Summicron-R); get that "classic" National Geographic look.

 

[rovnguy]

The last of my stash. When its all gone I think I'll throw a wake and stay drunk for a week.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

ooh la la. You know, I've never shot K25. I may go get some this weekend; I have access to some Tech Pan, if you can believe it (at $13 a roll!)

 

[julianphotoart]

First of all, maybe the word "ethics" was a bit strong. How about just "advice re Kodachrome". The genesis for this thread is my memory of having viewed the gallery of someone in RFF who posted Kodachrome slides he had from Cuba (I think) in the 1950's. They were incredibly vivid; like the photos were made yesterday.

Second, does Kodachrome have even less latitude than regular E-6 transparency film? If that is so, then I made a mistake. This evening I just couldn't wait and loaded one of my two Kodachrome rolls in the newly CLA'd Konica IIIa that I just got back from Greg Weber. From what everyone is saying, maybe I'll reserve the other roll for a modern camera with sophisticated metering. It might be interesting to compare the outcomes.

Third, someone commented about expired film. Actually, the 2 rolls I bought show an expiration date of January 2007. I happened to be at Samys in Santa Barbara getting a whole batch of Agfa APX 100 and there the Kodachrome was, right behind the counter. They also had Kodachrome 200.

 

[ch1]

First of all, maybe the word "ethics" was a bit strong. How about just "advice re Kodachrome". The genesis for this thread is my memory of having viewed the gallery of someone in RFF who posted Kodachrome slides he had from Cuba (I think) in the 1950's. They were incredibly vivid; like the photos were made yesterday.

Second, does Kodachrome have even less latitude than regular E-6 transparency film? If that is so, then I made a mistake. This evening I just couldn't wait and loaded one of my two Kodachrome rolls in the newly CLA'd Konica IIIa that I just got back from Greg Weber. From what everyone is saying, maybe I'll reserve the other roll for a modern camera with sophisticated metering. It might be interesting to compare the outcomes.

Third, someone commented about expired film. Actually, the 2 rolls I bought show an expiration date of January 2007. I happened to be at Samys in Santa Barbara getting a whole batch of Agfa APX 100 and there the Kodachrome was, right behind the counter. They also had Kodachrome 200.

"...[T]hose nice bright colors...Oh, mama don't you take my Kodachrome away!!"

Or something like that (apologies to Paul Simon and Bill M. here who first noted the song.

Enjoy shooting the rolls - and if they come out looking like s**t - who cares? At least you will have had a great time taking the shots!

 

[ch1]

ooh la la. You know, I've never shot K25. I may go get some this weekend; I have access to some Tech Pan, if you can believe it (at $13 a roll!)

Me too - nothing to offer but $$. Oh how I'd love to take a couple of rolls on our cruise to Bermuda next July!

But then, of course that would surely guarantee a week of overcast and rain. :bang:

But anyway, if you'd be willing to part with a couple of rolls, please PM me.

 

[canonetc]

What I consider an ethical quandry: I just bought 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64. Never bought it before; I was too chicken. Now, all caution to the wind -- I don't care if I have to send it across-country for development.

For some reason I feel that I owe it to the tradition of this film to use it in a classic camera. How do you feel about that? Kodachrome in a 1958 Konica IIIa? Or go ahead and use it in a totally modern camera?

Forget ethics and focus on GLASS/LENS QUALITY. You might find BETTER lens quality with a "classic" camera than some "modern" cameras. For example, the standard 3.5-5.6 Canon sweatshop-cheapie lens that comes on, say, a "modern" Rebel XT SLR Film camera might not match up with the contrast, sharpness and image quality of a Leica or Voightlander lens.

If you like the contrast/sharpness of your Konica IIIa when using other color films, then GO FOR IT with the Kodachrome 64! And the you can be true to your heart's desire. If your Konica "flattens" the film using a film plate inside, then all the better. My Canonet makes great results with the K64.

Also, Samy's might be able to tell you where it's processed. Ritz Camera will send it to New Jersey (and you can get more from Ritz for about $7.00).

Chris
canonetc

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Is Kodachrome 64 officially discontinued?

Do you have a link to a Kodak webpage or press release stating that?

Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris-

 

[RObert Budding]

I used to shoot Kodachrome 25. Nice film! Enjoy yout binge.

Robert

 

[x-ray]

There's nothing clasic but the name Kodachrome. The film of today is similar but still quite different then the 60's variety. When I was a kid my dad shot Kodachrome asa10. Then Kodachrome II (asa25) came out and later Kodachrome X at asa 64. Kodachrome X had a terrible color rendition of skin but the asa 25 of the 60's is what most people remember. Kodachrome has undergone a number of major changes in emulsion and process and looks very little like the original.

Back in the 40's and early 50's Kodachrome asa 10 was made in sheets up to 8x10. About ten or fifteen years ago Kodak made Kodachrome 64 in 120. I shot a few jobs on it and liked the look vs E6 but the processing plant in Atlanta had closed and everything had to go to Rochester. It too a wee to get it back which just won't work for a commercial shooter. For giggles I kept a few rolls and am glad I did. I think the downfall of kodachrome has been Velvia, Provia and Astia. Astia now has finer grain than even Kodachrome 25 not to mention better color, better contrast and easy processing.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

K-chrome is not extinct. It's still alive and kicking, despite the exaggerated rumours about its demise. It simply happens that its processing has turned out to be expensive compared to the E-6 films. The only K-chrome that was discontinued was the ISO 25.

It's slide film, and thus its latitude is the same as E-6. And yes, it went through some growing pains in the beginning. The thing is that this film has to go through a process in which the emulsion is subject to a treatment with chemicals about color called "couplers." The couplers, in contact with the exposed film, associate themselves with certain colors in the emulsion (which was originally silver halide, like B & W). The "couplers" were applied as part of the developing process. Later films like Ektachrome came with color couplers incorporated, and then it was easier to develop them.

I don't know this from experience. Check out a book by Els Rijper titled Kodachrome: 1939-1959; it's a history of the film and a collection of the great Life photos, done in K-chrome between 1939 & 1959.

Now, to address your question, Julian, it's a film worth trying in any camera. It is its fallibility that makes it valuable: those intense skin tones are so technicolor you no longer will wonder where they came from. They were this stuff! 🙂

BTW, I first shot Kodachrome with a Nikon AF SLR... and loved it. I've used it with my Canonet, my Contax G1 and my Leicas, and it never fails me... Nice, warm colors and very cute faces¡ 🙂 Check out the biker (Leica M6TTL, Summicron 90, K-200).

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

K-chrome is not extinct. It's still alive and kicking, despite the exaggerated rumours about its demise. It simply happens that its processing has turned out to be expensive compared to the E-6 films. The only K-chrome that was discontinued was the ISO 25.

This is what I have read as well. As far as I know, Kodak has stopped processing K-14 films, but there are a few labs that still do; it so happens that the process is not environmentally-correct. Which makes you wonder how so, for C-41 chemicals are highly toxic themselves, and its disposal guidelines are considered ok.

 

[jlw]

Which makes you wonder how so, for C-41 chemicals are highly toxic themselves, and its disposal guidelines are considered ok.

The C-41 kits I used to buy noted in the instructions that the chemicals were designed to neutralize each other when mixed together, so although they were hazardous individually it was safe to throw them all in a bucket when finished and dump it down the sink. Don't know how that conforms with today's environmental laws, though.