shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
An Nikon Coolscan V. With this roll (fresh for a change), I have zero difficulty scanning the mounted slides. Just have to drag the level to compensate for the black border.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I've only ever shot two rolls but I have really liked the look of this film (K64). I love the way the images jump out at you on a light table.
I love these
The colors from the Kodachrome is punchy but not flat or overbearing. Speaking for myself, I can't say the same thing for most of pictures produced using digital cameras.
And please don't tell me that scanned film is the same as a digital sensor, because they are not.
gdi
Veteran
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Here's a digital photo of a recent roll...
__hh
Well-known
Here's a digital photo of a recent roll...
I like this shot... it's photography in its own way....
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I don't have problems scanning KM/KR with an ancient CanoScan 2700. Kodachrome IS colour film. Nuff said.
ThomasDee
Newbie
It gives the nice bright colors. It gives the green of summer. It makes you think all the world's a sunny day.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I'm still learning to use it. I shot several rolls last summer and really only like this one:
My "normal" daytime shots all have a severe blue/green color cast to them.
Rob
My "normal" daytime shots all have a severe blue/green color cast to them.
Rob
Erik L
Well-known
i like it, but its a shame i cant buy any in 120.
sirius
Well-known
Here's my contribution to the discussion from my hike on the west coast trail, canada
washing dishes
a top-heavy backpacker
sandstone creek
walbrun campsite
cheers
washing dishes
a top-heavy backpacker
sandstone creek
walbrun campsite
cheers
dmr
Registered Abuser
At the risk of sounding like some kind of stick in the mud here, I might respectfully disagree with the Nice Bright Colors<tm> thing.
Contrary to the lyrics of the song, Kodachrome doesn't show you what's not there. Kodachrome doesn't sucker-punch you with hues reminiscent of an explosion in a paint factory! Kodachrome shows you the way it is, not the way some might wish it to be.
Compared to today's films such as Velvia or even Reala, Kodachrome is more muted and less saturated.
And ... at the risk of sounding like the biggest stick in the mud there is ...
Even though I love Kodachrome and have since I was in my teens, I never really cared for the Paul Simon tune. Sorry. I always considered it to be yet another commercial-pop tune that was overplayed on AM stations, and one of S&G's (individual or together) weaker numbers. Hey, if you like it, all the better. If we all liked the same things, this world would be a very boring place!
(Yeah, I took some of this from a recent blog entry I did.)
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
At the risk of sounding like some kind of stick in the mud here, I might respectfully disagree with the Nice Bright Colors<tm> thing.
Contrary to the lyrics of the song, Kodachrome doesn't show you what's not there. Kodachrome doesn't sucker-punch you with hues reminiscent of an explosion in a paint factory! Kodachrome shows you the way it is, not the way some might wish it to be.
Compared to today's films such as Velvia or even Reala, Kodachrome is more muted and less saturated.
And ... at the risk of sounding like the biggest stick in the mud there is ...
Even though I love Kodachrome and have since I was in my teens, I never really cared for the Paul Simon tune. Sorry. I always considered it to be yet another commercial-pop tune that was overplayed on AM stations, and one of S&G's (individual or together) weaker numbers. Hey, if you like it, all the better. If we all liked the same things, this world would be a very boring place!
(Yeah, I took some of this from a recent blog entry I did.)
I must agree with you. On 2 counts:
Kodachrome color isn't garish, but it is fairly robust. As in the OP's original scan. But easily manipulated by underexposing slightly, for more vibrant color. Especially when projected. It is not as over-the-top as Velvia. (Btw, I like Velvia also.) When first introduced, it was probably better than anything else. I think it definitely holds its own today, but it's not ahead of everything else.
And I don't really like the Paul Simon song either. He's written much better. I like the quirky idea of a pop song about a commercial imaging product much better than the realization of the song.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
At the risk of sounding like some kind of stick in the mud here, I might respectfully disagree with the Nice Bright Colors<tm> thing.
Contrary to the lyrics of the song, Kodachrome doesn't show you what's not there. Kodachrome doesn't sucker-punch you with hues reminiscent of an explosion in a paint factory! Kodachrome shows you the way it is, not the way some might wish it to be.
Compared to today's films such as Velvia or even Reala, Kodachrome is more muted and less saturated.
Thank you.
I prefer Kodachrome palette such as it is and the Portra 160NC. Neither over the top. Let my kid draw with the crayolas.
Even today I think K14 still holds a solid position in color photography. I try to shoot with it as much as feasible before it becomes history.
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
You don't know me very well, do you?
ROTFLMAO!!!
I agree with you on both counts -- Kodachrome colours are the way it is. It is the dynamic range that is a bit constricted, especially compared with colour negative films. This means that normally one underexposes a tad so as not to blow the highlights.
As far as the song goes, it is the beat, the rhythm that makes it a bit infectious. Otherwise, no, it's not one of their best efforts, and not accurate to the character of the film!
Earl
I WANT MY K64 4X5!!!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Actually, the "colors" of Kodachrome (ISO 10, 16 for the tungsten version) have varied a lot from the 1930's to the present day. The original was very contrasty. It was improved bit by bit over the years and then about 1962 replaced by Kodachrome II with a speed of ISO 25 (40 for the tungsten version). K-II had much lower contrast and more believable muted colors compared to K-I In '63 or '64 Kodak added Kodachrome-X to the mix with a speed of 64, a lot more contast, and punchier colors. Those who missed the look of original Kodachrome seemed to like it. Most of us hated it.
Rumor had it that the EPA wasn't happy with the efluent from the K-12 process. Kodak reformulated the films and the process, giving us Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64 using the K-14 process, but most of us felt that the magic was gone. The colors, the contrast, everything was wrong. Kodachrome-X was never embraced like Kodachrome II by pros and serious amateurs, and most of them felt the same about both Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64.
No doubt new research money went into the Ektachromes as two hour E-6 labs sprung up everyplace. Nobody wanted to wait two days for Kodachrome, and more like a week if you lived in a small town. Other research money went into improving the color negative (C-41) films, that were so much better than the older C-22 films.
About the only thing happening in Kodachrome for the past thirty or so years was the introduction of an ISO 200 film.
You'd think that with today's technology there'd be an easy way to clean up the effluent from the K-12 processing chemicals, or even make a K-12 processing machine that could sit next to the C-41 mini lab at the corner drugstore. Dream on...
Rumor had it that the EPA wasn't happy with the efluent from the K-12 process. Kodak reformulated the films and the process, giving us Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64 using the K-14 process, but most of us felt that the magic was gone. The colors, the contrast, everything was wrong. Kodachrome-X was never embraced like Kodachrome II by pros and serious amateurs, and most of them felt the same about both Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64.
No doubt new research money went into the Ektachromes as two hour E-6 labs sprung up everyplace. Nobody wanted to wait two days for Kodachrome, and more like a week if you lived in a small town. Other research money went into improving the color negative (C-41) films, that were so much better than the older C-22 films.
About the only thing happening in Kodachrome for the past thirty or so years was the introduction of an ISO 200 film.
You'd think that with today's technology there'd be an easy way to clean up the effluent from the K-12 processing chemicals, or even make a K-12 processing machine that could sit next to the C-41 mini lab at the corner drugstore. Dream on...
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I thought Paul Simon's reference was right on for the time. Just look at all those NatGeo's from the 60's and 70's, when NatGeo photogs were shooting everything with Kodachrome (mostly K25). You would have sworn all the world was a sunny day with beautiful blue skies.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Any chance of keeping Kodak from pulling the plug on K14 ended with the advent of digital. Even before digital got its foothold on the public K14 was on its way out. Unfortunately, the mentality is if it isnt new then its got to be torn down. I cant think of one (1) color neg film that has survived as long as any K14 version.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Man, I'm glad this thread has become such a wealth of info. Thanks to all who contributed.
Paul, I think you owe dmr an apology, and she's one of the staunchest defender of Kodachrome around here.
dmr, would it hurt you so much to tell us at least your first name? I like discussing Kodachrome with you but I sure want to address you on first name basis.
Paul, I think you owe dmr an apology, and she's one of the staunchest defender of Kodachrome around here.
dmr, would it hurt you so much to tell us at least your first name? I like discussing Kodachrome with you but I sure want to address you on first name basis.