Most Kodachrome Like Current Film

I saw ASA 10 Kodachromes taken by Edward Weston. 8x10. There was some fading, and I don't think Weston was comfortable with colour at that time, but they were still marvelous.

Looking at my Olympus 35LC the other day, I noted the ASA selector goes down to ASA 10. Made me sort of sad that no continuous tone film is available at that speed. Maybe KB25 rated at 10 with pull processing, but nothing in colour.
 
For someone who is interested in different film, can you please explain to me the attributes of Kodachrome. I'm interested to try it after viewing this thread, but I would like a little more info on why so many of you regard it so highly.

Many Thanks 🙂

Scott
 
While not the finest measured grain, sharpness is extremely high. Great colour balance (IMO), accurate skintones, saturation "just right" for me, i.e. not over-the-top like Velvia and some others. At ISO 64, it makes you slow down and use your best techniques i.e., support/tripod, etc. Rated at EI 80, it gives a bit more saturation if that is appropriate. (This is true of most chromes.)

Overall has a 3-dimensionality that other films may have, but Kodachrome seems to shine in this respect.

The only downside, as has been mentioned, is processing. Only a few places in the world continue to process the film.
 
sherm said:
For someone who is interested in different film, can you please explain to me the attributes of Kodachrome.

I'm having what I call a final fling with Kodachrome (64) before it goes bibi4ever, which is more or less certain in the next several years some time.

Kodachrome has often been the "gold standard" against which other films were judged.

Sharpness, fine grain, great detail, and natural color rendition are what I like about it. It's not highly saturated, some call it "muted" or "subdued" compared to today's films. You definitely don't get that "Fuji blue" sky with Kodachrome. "Accurate" is the word I would use to describe Kodachrome's color.

It does have its down sides too. As far as exposure is concerned, it can't take a joke. You have to be right on, very little tolerance, as is the case with most other slide films as well.

Dynamic range is lacking (as with most other slide films as well) when compared to today's negative films. I wouldn't even consider using Kodachrome for any high-contrast scenes.

Ditto with color temperature. It's picky about what you try to feed it. It's daylight balanced, and it seems to actually amplify or exaggerate any coloration from non-daylight sources which happen to be in your scene. I'm really spoiled by the way Fuji negative films tolerate mixed light sources.

As has been mentioned, processing is less convenient than other films. Dwayne's does a good job, however, and I always get same-week turn-around by mail. Thanks to reports here, I'm going to try one of their CD scan disks when I am done with the current roll in the Mamiya.
 
sherm said:
For someone who is interested in different film, can you please explain to me the attributes of Kodachrome. I'm interested to try it after viewing this thread, but I would like a little more info on why so many of you regard it so highly.

Many Thanks 🙂

Scott

From one Texican to another: Just shoot it! A polarizer will do wonders for blue skies and anything reflective. Smacks his head hard :bang: for leaving the polarizer in the bag last weekend.

www.dwaynesphoto.com for ALL of your Kodachrome needs.

If you need a roll to get started, like I did, Wolf Camera stores usually have Kodachrome 64.
 
venchka said:
From one Texican to another: Just shoot it! A polarizer will do wonders for blue skies and anything reflective. Smacks his head hard :bang: for leaving the polarizer in the bag last weekend.

www.dwaynesphoto.com for ALL of your Kodachrome needs.

If you need a roll to get started, like I did, Wolf Camera stores usually have Kodachrome 64.

Thanks for the tip brutha

Scott
 
Back
Top Bottom