Kodachrome Rules!

[jaapv]

And it keeps very well too. This one from my gallery is from 1976, in Enontekiö, Finnish Lapland. It was the only one I managed to scan totally sharp btw, the other ones, though sharp on projection, are just acceptable on scan. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they are behind glass. But notice the wonderful way Kodachrome 64 kept its colours over 30 years...

 

[dmr]

dmr, great available light shot. I usually avoid high contrast lighting, some say filters work, sometimes the high contrast works for you.

Thanks. 🙂 This was just an accident. I just punched it on "B" for what I thought was about a second, just to see what would happen. 🙂

Agreed, grain is minimal, colors are natural and, the slide lasts forever, at least as long as I've had mine (50+ years). I always use Kodachrome for a permanent record of family, Holidays or vacations.

I have some Kodachromes from the 70s that are just as brilliant now as they were then. The one thing, ironically, that some say degrades Kodachrome is projecting them with bright and hot projection lamps.

As for grain, with an 8x10 print it seems like you really have to look for any evidence of grain, while with something like the Walgreens/Agfa 200, the grain is very obvious. (Yes, yes, I know it's comparing apples to oranges, but they both grow on trees. ) 🙂

It amazes me how everyone in the photo business I run into "bad mouths" Kodachrome. Must have been an unprofitable operation selling/processing the film.

Uh-huh, follow the money. 🙂 I'm sure most places quit stocking it because it moves slowly in comparison to Ektachrome type films, and we all know about the processing issue.

... and ...

however I find that, unlike E6 film, it is very difficult to scan.

How so? I've had excellent results scanning with the SD IV, mostly with everything on default settings.

 

[Goodyear]

I've been scanning my first ever Kodachromes.

Initial impressions are that I like, even if my scanner likes to make it blue (these are uncorrected) and it could maybe do with a little more exposure than I was giving it. Shame about the two-week turnaround from Switzerland...

 

[JJW]

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen....

Wasn't Kodachrome discontinued several years ago?

If it's still available.... where?

 

[lushd]

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen....

Wasn't Kodachrome discontinued several years ago?

If it's still available.... where?

If you live in the UK you can buy it easily in Boots off the shelf (Boots is a chain Chemists, for our non-UK types).

I think it is a truly great colour film and my advice to one and all is go out and buy some so Kodak will think it's worth making. 😀

 

[dmr]

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen....

Ok, you're excused. 🙂

Wasn't Kodachrome discontinued several years ago?

Nope.

The slowest of the K14 Kodachrome (ISO 25) was discontinued. 64 and 200 live on.

If it's still available.... where?

Both Adorama and B&H stock it. Various indie "real" camera shops have it, but it's hit and miss. Dwayne's Photo in Parsons Kansas, the only lab in North America that still does daily Kodachrome processing stocks it as well.

Yes, it is still alive and well 🙂 ... for now ... 🙁

 

[kbg32]

Kodachrome is nothing like it was when Kodak actually processed it. Kodachrome's popularity died when Kodak liscensed the processing to independent labs. The quality went steadily downhill.

 

[julianphotoart]

Add me as a user of Kodachrome.

I don't mind the wait-time for processing since the reason I'm using is, in part, its permanence. What's 2 weeks, anyway? Adds to the drama.

Samy's in Santa Barbara and L.A. stocks both Kodachrome 64 and 200, without any apparent issue with limited supply. Dwayne's of course would love to sell new film to replace what it processes. Not a bad deal, since the processed stuff comes right to my door anyway. Easier than driving all over the place.

Dwayne's processing doesn't seem so bad. His CD's of scanned Kodachrome slides kind of sucks, however. Whoever is doing the scanning over there isn't doing so well.

I kind of like the lack of exposure latitude. Kodachrome's accuracy, permanence, quality, and lack of patience for exposure errors give me a good excuse to really slow down the picture-taking process and be more deliberate. That's kind of a good thing generally though, isn't it? As long as there's a tripod around, using Kodachrome for lower contrast days ends up with results I like. I don't take it out in the sun much.

 

[dmr]

I don't mind the wait-time for processing since the reason I'm using is, in part, its permanence. What's 2 weeks, anyway?

For me, less than a week, very consistently. Send off Monday, get back Saturday, and sometimes a surprise on Friday. 🙂

Dwayne's processing doesn't seem so bad.

The slides are flawless! They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that any Kodachrome that gets sent in to Kodak (here in the States, that is) for processing gets sent to Dwayne's.

His CD's of scanned Kodachrome slides kind of sucks, however. Whoever is doing the scanning over there isn't doing so well.

Thanks for the heads up. I've considered getting their CD at times, but mainly haven't since it adds something like 3 days to the turn-around.

I kind of like the lack of exposure latitude.

I don't like this, but I like the results, so a little more attention to detail, such as exposure, makes the whole process worth it.

 

[Trius]

Kodachrome is nothing like it was when Kodak actually processed it. Kodachrome's popularity died when Kodak liscensed the processing to independent labs. The quality went steadily downhill.

How so? Evidence? That's a pretty broad statement. I've had good results from Dwayne's.

 

[tetrisattack]

Gosh! Look at those sample shots! I'm too young to have ever shot kodachrome, but I just can't get over those nice, bright colors. It's like all the world's a sunny day!

I should shoot some before it's gone forever.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I came back from Germany, where I used some of my recently purchased K64 (the best film ever... besides Scala). And I have used K-chrome since I discovered it in 2001. It's just that I keep it for travels or special occasions only, the ones I want to keep in for a long time.

BTW, my avatar is a Kodachrome pic (in a mall in Southern California, three years ago). How's that for color? 😉

 

[planetjoe]

I just wanted to say that it's threads like this one (and images like those included here) that make me happy that I'm a fellow who knows my way around a camera.

I have to thank my lucky stars for the power of sight. Thanks for another great thread, folks.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[David Murphy]

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen....

Wasn't Kodachrome discontinued several years ago?

If it's still available.... where?

It's sold by major camera stores, e.g. Adorama

 

[David Murphy]

And it keeps very well too. This one from my gallery is from 1976, in Enontekiö, Finnish Lapland. It was the only one I managed to scan totally sharp btw, the other ones, though sharp on projection, are just acceptable on scan. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they are behind glass. But notice the wonderful way Kodachrome 64 kept its colours over 30 years...

If that shot is not a demonstration of the color rendition inherent in Kodachrome I don't know what is -- stunning !

One huge advantage of Kodachrome is its archival quality. If you want to see Kodachrome paired with a Zeiss Ikon Contax IIa from the 30s to about the 70's see this fascinating link to the Cushan collection:

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp

 

[sfb_dot_com]

I'm a fan of this film, and still recall with affection Kodachromes I shot in the 70's and 80's. Sadly many are now gone not decayed but lost. However I recently scanned a roll I took when on a student field trip to the Pyrenees way back in '79, and even though they were shot on my Dad's old Agfa Silette with no exposure meter most apart from one or two were correctly exposed. A couple of the shots even are ones I'd still be proud of today. Must put them up here sometime.

Andy

 

[tkluck]

Kodacrome is wonderful film. From the standpoint of the photographer that is.
The K-14 process is a nightmare. It is a 16 step involving 18 chemicals. (counting A-B and A-B-C parts, if I've counted right) And don't forget critical temperatures. Did I mention toxic?
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_04.pdf

Kodacrome survived for a long time on sheer infrestructure inerta, and because it worked so well. But no drug store chain in their right mind wanted to invest in and run a new Kodacrome plant.

Steam locomotives are wonderful things too. Songs and poetry. Nobody wants to make a living pulling the fires, cleaning out the boilers, or breathing the smoke. Only a few stressed out professionals on weekends...

 

[scottgee1]

If you want to see superb Kodachrome work, pick up any issue of National Geographic magazine from 1936 forward that features color -- it's likely to be shot on K-chrome. Well, until availability started to diminish. 😡

BTW, William Albert Allard shot most of his work with Leica M and Kodachrome. Examples:

http://nationalgeographic.com/photography/allard/index.html

This, also, specific to K-chrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

ScottGee1

 

[David Murphy]

Thanks for these fascinating documents -- I am a bit surprised to see they are public.

I am not a chemist (I am a physicist) and I was not overwhelmed with the compexity of this description. I have witnessed the manufacture of a number of industrial products with similar or greater complexity in chemical processing (e.g. semiconductors). In fact I am heartened that they have published it.

 

[Iskra 2]

Did I mention toxic?

Hi tkluck, good point on the toxicity; however, the world's packaging, transportation, chemical, etc, etc industries pollution far exceed the insignificant Kodachrome processing pollution. 😡 Sort of like "Global Warming". Who has the biggest "soapbox". :bang: :angel: Regards.