Kodachrome Reveals Photographers Errors

[Iskra 2]

Been using Kodachrome since the 50's. Every bad slide was the result of my mistake using a handheld meter or in-camera metering quirks. 😡

Kodachrome is unforgiving! You make a metering mistake, too bad, don't blame the film, you screwed up, period! Not a pleasant experience or lesson for most of us. :bang:

Kodachrome wasn't designed for producing today's "Looney Toons" and "Product" images. 😀 While it's colors seem unsuitable for many, to most others it consistently renders the most true natural colors that have stood the test of time.

Buy it and try it if you can handle the challenge? 🙂 :angel:

Regarding processing, remember, gratification delayed vs gratification denied. Wait a week for your slides to return and view them forever, vs sometimes comparable E6 processing and eventual faded slides. :angel:

The environmental impact concerns of Kodachrome are BS. Sniff some E6 or C41 stuff. With only three labs worldwide Kodachromes impact is a non-event. 🙂

:angel:

 

[bmattock]

It takes me a week or more to get E6 back - no one still does it where I live. Only C41 and my own B&W processing.

I agree that slide film in general is less forgiving than color print film - it has less latitude, so you can blow it out easily.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[MinorTones]

If time permits, when shooting transparency films I tend to bracket my exposures for that very reason. i.e. 1/500 @ f/8 then f/11 then f/5.6. Sure it seems like a waste but when that perfect shot comes along dont waste film by missing it.

Mitch

 

[djon]

I disagree about Kodachrome's merit, Vs E6, and even Vs E4. 🙄

E4/E6 Ektachromes are/were dead accurate (when processed well) Vs Kodachrome....it was Kodachrome that made the sappy cartoons (sunsets especially). 😉

Kodachrome's advantage over Ektachrome was almost entirely the superior processing that Kodak and its high-quality designated labs provided. Yes, it was sharper than E4, but not sharper than E6 (both were limited by camera optics). And yes, Kodak did always do exceptionally fine E4 processing, but most E4 users were professionals, so wanted quicker turnaround.

Kodachrome did provide a superior black, which was relevant primarily when viewed with a loupe. On the other hand, Kodachrome presumed good light, which is antithetical to 35mm in the first place: if one is going to use a tripod and slow exposures, medium format makes more sense. By contrast, E4/E6 have been easily and attractively processed with two stop push (by competent labs) for the forty years I've shot it. Current Fujichrome Sensia 400 is as beautiful as Kodachrome ever was, and more accurate...at 400ASA.

Fuji's Velvia is a special case: it was created specifically for people who want overblown color for postcard images...typically the people who most loved Kodachrome.

IMO 😛

 

[djon]

...my E4 from the late Sixties looks as good as my Kodachrome from that era.

IMO its just urban legend that Kodachrome is longer-lasting than E4.E6 Ektachrome (old E2 and perhaps E3 were transient). I've recently been scanning my father's Kodachrome from Korean War...certain colors and black are fading. I've also been scanning my mother's Anscochrome from 1939 (processed by her at home): Looks good.

If one is concerned about archival storage, there's nothing that will beat scanning with appropriate backups (currently the combination of HD and CD). 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Buy it and try it if you can handle the challenge? 🙂

I bought a roll of Kodachrome 64 yesterday. Fall colors are just past peak here, but hoping to get something, and also some people pics; I wish I were in Mexico for the shooting test, though. I have never shot Kodachrome, so I'll see what comes back. It cost me $8.00; most expensive roll of slide film I ever bought.

I got a roll back of Ektachrome; pretty unforgiving itself. Elitechrome too. Slide film in general is; so if Kodachrome is even more unforgiving, oh boy...

 

[djon]

You have perhaps a half stop to play with when shooting any slide film...depending on the image. In other words, you can slightly over-expose and you may WANT to slightly under-expose. With Kodachrome 64, many set their meters at 80 (enriches color/density in many situations while avoiding blown-out highlights)...but then they REALLY need to be careful not to under-expose further..their version of bracketing means adding a half stop and another half stop, rather than shooting a half under and a half over.

Meter accuracy (and consistency between hand-held and ttl) is important if you're going to shoot chromes. While a repairman can be important, especially with old equipment, there's nothing that's as reliable as shooting and studying chrome tests. You might conclude, for example, that your meter is off by a full stop...which is OK if it's consistent, and if you KNOW it functions that way....

 

[Skinny McGee]

I would love to get my hands on some of the kodachrome that that they used in the war the 12.... I love kodachrome Ireally like the way it tones things it kinda make thing like another little 2x2 world.... Hey Iskra2 have you ever used any of the 12?

I am excited about trying the new 100 Fuji It looks pretty crazy.

 

[dmr]

...my E4 from the late Sixties looks as good as my Kodachrome from that era.

IMO its just urban legend that Kodachrome is longer-lasting than E4.E6 Ektachrome (old E2 and perhaps E3 were transient).

We may have to agree to disagree on this. 🙂 Maybe when stored under ideal conditions this may be true, and I sure won't know about E6 Ektachrome keeping that long until I'm in my 80's. 🙂

I do have a few hundred slides of early 70's vintage, mostly Ektachrome, quite a few Kodachrome (25), some High Speed Ektachrome, and one roll of Infrared Ektachrome, which I believe was E3.

The Kodachromes are fine. Essentially no significant degredation. I admit none of these were stored properly, they were in attics and cellars and such over the past 30 years.

The Ektachromes are consistently inconsistent. Some are really great for being 30y old, but many have faded into a weak cyan cast. 🙁 There does not seem to be any difference between those processed by Kodak and those by Berkey.

Interestingly, the High Speed Ektachrome and Infrared Ektachrome appear to have held up better than the regular Ektachrome 64.

 

[naturephoto1]

Any transparency film will generally only record between about 3 1/2 to 4 stops of light. A 5 stop lighting range will result in recording from clear to black. One must be very careful in exposure of any transparency material. This is partially why checking exposure range of highlights and shadow areas is helpful with a spot meter. If you are in this exposure range, a trick that I use for exposure is to meter on the brightest part of the scene (generally sky or clouds). When the brightest part of the scene is known, use this as your exposure but, open the aperture (and/or adjust shutter speed) by 1 1/2 stops. Then bracket in 1/2 stop intervals as usual. This allows the brightest part of the scene to record some detail on the transparency. This is the same idea for correction of a scene of white snow or white sand. One or 2 of the bracketed shots is almost invariably correct and very usable.

If not within the 3 1/2 to 4 stop range, consider recomposing or using a grad ND filter if conditions allow. If you use a grad ND filter and you are within the 3 1/2 to 4 stop range, you can use the same technique as mentioned above for exposure.

As to life of Kodachrome. Stored properly (and most of us don't), Kodachrome was supposed to have a life of around 75 years. As far as I know, no E3, E4, or E6 process has that kind of life. I believe they are thought to be more like 20 to 30 years.

Rich

http://www.nelridge.com
richard@nelridge.com

 

[kiev4a]

...my E4 from the late Sixties looks as good as my Kodachrome from that era.

IMO its just urban legend that Kodachrome is longer-lasting than E4.E6 Ektachrome (old E2 and perhaps E3 were transient). I've recently been scanning my father's Kodachrome from Korean War...certain colors and black are fading. I've also been scanning my mother's Anscochrome from 1939 (processed by her at home): Looks good.

If one is concerned about archival storage, there's nothing that will beat scanning with appropriate backups (currently the combination of HD and CD). 😉

I have Kodachromes from the '60s that haven faded any as far as I can see. In the other hand, virtually all my Ektachrome E-4 stuff from the same period has faded, at least some -- all my stuff was stored in the same environment -- closed boxes.

 

[Iskra 2]

Hey Iskra2 have you ever used any of the 12?

Nope, just K25 in the early 50's. 🙂

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Dunno if the title of the thread is a knock against Kodachrome,
but I consider the lack of exposure latitude a plus.

Kodachrome makes one work with just a little more care.
Is that a bad thing?

As a result, I'll bet the average Kodachrome user
actually gets *more* "keepers"...

Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris-

 

[Pherdinand]

i don't think it was intended as a knock.

 

[Trius]

Nope, just K25 in the early 50's. 🙂

K25 was introduced in the 70s, the successor to Kodachrome II. K-II was ASA 25.

I recently saw 8x10 Kodachromes from the 40s or 50s, taken by Edward Weston. Oh for K64 in 8x10 now... that would be enough for me to get an 8x10, an upgrade from the miniature 4x5 format.

Trius

 

[Pherdinand]

Never big enough, right Trius?🙂

 

[Trius]

That's what about 50% of the population says ...

Trius

 

[Iskra 2]

K25 was introduced in the 70s, the successor to Kodachrome II. K-II was ASA 25. Trius

Trius, whatever the marketing name, it was Kodak Kodachrome ASA 25. 😱

You picked the yellow box that said Kodak Kodachrome or another "Wannabee" Kodachrome slide film if you couldn't afford the Kodachrome. :bang:

Kodachrome was always a very expensive film and after a few years the additional expense paid off. 🙂

I started this thread to remind unhappy Kodachrome users the problem is almost always the photographer, not the film. And.......... if you don't like the colors don't "knock" it by blaming the film in some way. 🙄

Pontificating on the demise or eventual demise of the film won't relieve the guilt of poor exposure either, IMHO. :angel:

By the way, I like Fuji Astia 100 in my MF's. Fuji says it's good for 100 years........
trust us. 🙂

When I tried Astia in 35mm it compared favorably with Kodachrome but still a more saturated artificial image. Not too bad though for a Fuji film. I sort of like looking at the slides when they come back and show them to people. They say wow, where did you take that picture, I've never seen it look that way before. 🙂

.......... so .......... use whatever film "works" for you. :angel:

 

[Trius]

Iskra: I agree to using whatever film "works". While I love Kodachrome, I also love(d) Agfachromes of various types. I found the colours to be extremely well rendered. Agfachrome 50 grain was larger than K25, of course, and was larger than K64, too. But it didn't really matter to me when I wanted that particular signature. E4 and E6 (at least the early E6 from Kodak) tended to be a bit cool in rendition, at least to me. Agfa got the blues right without shifting other colours. I haven't tried the newer Agfa slide films, and I won't because what's the point? They'll be gone soon anyway. 🙁

FWIW, my method of metering for exposure for chromes was one of two.

1. I used a handheld incident meter. In complex lighting situations, I would make two or more reading, metering in the brightest and darkest area and making a judgement on proper exposure.

2. I would sometimes use a spot meter, taking highlight, shadow and midtone readings and doing the math in my head.

In both cases, using EV readings was sometimes the easiest method of arriving at correct exposure.

Trius

 

[Iskra 2]

While I love Kodachrome, I also love(d) Agfachromes of various types. I found the colours to be extremely well rendered. Agfachrome 50 grain was larger than K25, of course, and was larger than K64, too. But it didn't really matter to me when I wanted that particular signature. E4 and E6 (at least the early E6 from Kodak) tended to be a bit cool in rendition, at least to me. Agfa got the blues right without shifting other colours. I haven't tried the newer Agfa slide films, and I won't because what's the point? They'll be gone soon anyway. 🙁
Trius

Trius, I used many rolls of Agfa film in the 80's looking for accurate colors as you say. It's history now. :bang: That's why I bring up Kodachrome all the time. I'd like to see it become more popular so it doesn't end up like many other good films. I think some "skirt" or "suit" "mouth" decides when a film must "go". Too bad, since they usually don't have a clue other than when their next hair appointment is. 🙂 :angel:

OK, rant's over, I'm going back to normal mode now. :angel: