Kodachrome! :)

[dmr]

I just got my first roll of Kodachrome (64) back the other day, and have a few scanned and cropped and cleaned up a bit. This is the first Kodachrome I've shot in over 20 years I would say, and the first Kodachrome 64 ever, since all I remember shooting before is the 25.

The grain is miniscule, as I expected. The color/saturation is not as vivid as I expected, but still very pleasing.

This first one below is a re-shoot of one I've taken with Fuji 400 color, for comparison. The second one is an attempt to get some reflections off the building at sunset.

Too bad this one is gonna be removed as an option shortly. 🙁

 

[back alley]

compared to today's more intense colour films this seems a more delicate palette.

 

[dmr]

compared to today's more intense colour films this seems a more delicate palette.

I'm sitting here looking at the attachment above and this one in the gallery, which was taken on Fuji 400 with the Mamiya. ...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4607/medium/hd.jpg

The yellow in the sign and the greens are definitely more vivid on the Fuji. These were taken one week apart, at more or less the same time of day, morning, with more or less the same weather (clear) so this does give a good comparison.

Speaking of the Kodachrome, I had almost forgotten how there's almost a bas-relief contour to the image on the emulsion side of the slides. 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Too bad this one is gonna be removed as an option shortly. 🙁

Wait, do you mean the building or Kodachrome?

I'm glad you liked it. Did you send it to Dwayne's Photo?

To me, the Kodachrome has a peculiar palette: it's, how do I say, far from realistic, very old-film-like. Take some portraits and you'll see the intense Technicolor pink and will understand what I mean.

Have fun too! 🙂

 

[dmr]

Too bad this one is gonna be removed as an option shortly. 🙁

Wait, do you mean the building or Kodachrome?

Kodachrome -- at least that's what "they" keep telling me.

I'm glad you liked it. Did you send it to Dwayne's Photo?

Uh-huh. Isn't that the only place that still does it? Well, maybe Rocky Mountain still does ... It took less than a week. I sent it in a week ago Friday (I think) and it came back Thursday morning.

To me, the Kodachrome has a peculiar palette: it's, how do I say, far from realistic, very old-film-like. Take some portraits and you'll see the intense Technicolor pink and will understand what I mean.

Ok, next roll I shoot I'll try to get some people pics in there. Self-portrait in the mirror? 🙂

Have fun too! 🙂

Don't I always? 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

dmr, the kodak/fuji examples seem to have a difference in overall brightness as well...

By the way, does the E in front of E100SW etc slide films mean ektachrome? What's the difference between Kodachrome, Ektachrome etc? Sorry if stupid question...

 

[Skinny McGee]

I love Kodachrome I can not find it anywhere now. not even the camera shop. I think I can order it though.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Pherdi, no question is ever stupid.

Kodachrome was invented in the 30s, and it's the first color film to surface in the history of photography. Oddly enough, it was invented by two musicians who also dabbled in photography and chemistry. The developing process is very complicated, and the descriptions I've read say that it consists on injecting dies or pigments into what otherwise would be a B&W film. It's main advantage: it's nearly eternal. Slides of Kodachrome taken in the 50s and 60s are still viewable, and, depending on storage conditions, they may look only a little faded. BTW, the Kodachrome process is known as K-14.

Ektachrome and other slide films are what they call E-6 processes, and don't require any complicated chemistry of the type used for Kodachrome. These are also newer films... and encompass all the current Kodak slide offerings, together with Agfa's and Fuji's and everything else under the sun, except Scala, which is a B&W slide film with a proprietary process (although, as Todd once proved, it can be developed as an ordinary B&W film).

Sorry about the wordiness... 🙂

 

[Kin Lau]

Perhaps the biggest difference, is that Kodachrome requires a special process, and there's only a few labs that can do it.

E6 on the other hand, can be done at home with the right kit, and many more labs can handle it. I believe the only option for Kodachrome in Toronto, is to mail it back to Kodak, whereas there's still a few labs that can handle e6 here, some even in 1hr.

 

[phototone]

Pherdi, no question is ever stupid.

Kodachrome was invented in the 30s, and it's the first color film to surface in the history of photography.

Not exaxtly true, as there were a number of relatively practical color processes prior to the introduction of Kodachrome. Firstly, there was the Autochrome process, which was developed and used quite extensively in the first two decades of the 20th century. Color plates in very early issues of National Geographic were shot using the Lumiere Autochrome process. This did not require any special camera.

Then there was the Kodak Kodacolor cine film, which used a striped matrix. This was offered to amateurs in 16mm in the late 20's. There were others. Gasparcolor, Dufay Color, etc. Kodachrome was a major leap forward in image quality, from what was available at the time.

Ektachrome and other slide films are what they call E-6 processes, and don't require any complicated chemistry of the type used for Kodachrome.

The development of Ektachrome came as a result of "war spoils" and the USA getting German Agfa technology. Afga had been producing a color transparency and cine film material for several years based on dye-coupler technology. Have you ever seen the color movie footage of Hitler and Germany as shown on The Discovery Channel and the History Channel? This is the predecessor of Ektachrome. Kodak took the knowledge gained from Agfa and developed it further, and continued to develop it until today it has resulted in the rather simple to do E-6 process. I am guessing that this is why other manufacturers also developed compatible films...because the core technology was in the public domaine, being available to all due to the defeat of Germany in WW 2.

 

[Iskra 2]

Kodachrome Rules!

Kodachrome Rules!

Too bad this one is gonna be removed as an option shortly. 🙁

As most photographers chase the "quick, gaudy and short lived" E6 transparency, Kodachrome use diminishes. :bang:

Use Kodachrome as much as you can for as long as you can........ and then maybe we will get "LUCKY" 🙂 Like the chinese film maker Lucky will produce it. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I no longer use Kodachrome as I no longer see advantages. Yes, Kodachrome *was* longer lived -- but I am not convinced that it is today. I find E6 excellent and of course I can process it at home. And you can't use Digital ICE with Kodachrome...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Iskra 2]

And you can't use Digital ICE with Kodachrome...

Hi Roger, I use a "Staticmaster" instead of "Digital Ice"....... why degrade the scan? 😕 There is hardly enough info on 35mm to waste with an imperfect algorithm. I suppose if there are many dirty negatives to scan "Ice" would be nice though. :angel:

 

[Pherdinand]

thanks guys for the koda-ekta explanation! One can learn something even on a sunday evening🙂

 

[Goodyear]

Funny, I just picked up my first roll of Kodachrome. Been meaning to give it a whirl.

I thought I was being clever, going for process-paid. Then I opened the box and discovered I have to send it to Switzerland to be processed :bang:

 

[zpuskas]

...oh momma, don't take my kodachrome away...! (thanks Paul Simon)

 

[phototone]

As most photographers chase the "quick, gaudy and short lived" E6 transparency, Kodachrome use diminishes. :bang:

Well, there is no disputing the longevity of Kodachrome, however, Kodak has constantly improved the E-6 Ektachrome process for over 30 years, and today the life span of Ektachrome approaches Kodachrome. In the last six or seven years, Kodak changed the process from a Formaldehyde final rinse for dye stability, to a pre-bleach chemical that goes between the Color Developer and the Bleach and this chemical stabilizes the dyes. I have almost 40 year old Ektachrome slides that look like they were shot yesterday. I even have several hundred Ektachrome E-4 process slides that I processed myself and as yet no fade. I really don't think 40 years qualifies as "quick, gaudy and short lived".

Now you want to talk about "short lived" lets talk about C-41 color negative film.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The losses from Digital Ice seem to be more theoretical than real. I'm pretty critical and even with a 2700 dpi scan I do not see significant degradation when scanning ISO 100 slide films. I prefer Kinetronics to Staticmaster for cleaning negs/slides though. I've needed ICE on several films because moving my drying cabinet (moving house) dislodged dust which became embedded in the emulsion.

I was recent;y scanning some 37-year-old commercially processed Ektachromes and they certainly benefited from Digital ROC, and when it came to the 50- and 55-year old Ektachromes my father-in-law shot, they were unusable without ROC. A lot depends on pricess quality, though: the lab I used in Plymouth in the 60s was not as good as the one I used in Bermuda (they werte sent to the USA, as I recall)

My Ferrania slides from the early 70s (proprietary non E6 compatible, home processed) are significantly better than Ektachromes from the same period. The oldest Kodachromes I have are wartime (c.1944) and they require very little 'tweaking'.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[dmr]

Here's a more pronounced comparison. It's obvious which one is Kodachrome and which is Fuji 400 color negative. 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Yes, the colours are much nicer on the Kodachrome, but i am not sure if one is able to properly compare scanned, on a sloppy monitor. Colour negative can give quite good colours when properly exposed and *printed*...