Why do I hate Kodak slide film?

[jpa66]

I just got back some slide film that I had shot, and I realized that I really dislike, hate even, Kodak slide film. I had a roll of Elite Chrome 100 and two rolls of Fuji Astia 100. I shot all of it with a Canonet. Once again, the Kodak film has a blueish cast to it ( on most of the pics ). The Fuji film does not. I also shot some Kodak Slide film earlier in the year, and it had the same bluish cast to it ( shot with a Canon AE-1 P ).

I seem to recall a great dislike of Extachrome back in the '80's when I was shooting it, and I switched to Agfachrome, now gone of course ( the story of my life ). Now I remember why I switched!

 

[oftheherd]

It used to be said you could tell the color cast of the slide film by the color of the box. In seemed true. Kodachrome had a yellow/gold cast, ektachrome a blue cast, Fujichrom a greenish case, agfachrome I don't know. I have never been able to get Agfa films to behave for me.

 

[sper]

Different films have different color response. Try E100G, it's great, if not a bit punchy.

Or, if you like the fuji stuff just don't buy Kodak.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

How much of the color cast is actually from the film itself and how much impact does the operator developing or running the machine have on the color?

 

[Rhoyle]

E100G is really pretty neutral. I've found that it scans very easily with little adjustment needed. However, despite the greatness of Provia (I'm not being sarcastic), I've found that I've always had to jump through hoops to balance the color. I'd say stay away from Kodak consumer stuff and pay more attention to their pro products.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I actually went on a huge slide film kick recently, developing it all myself with the Tetanal kit, and basically tried every color slide film available. All my favorites were Fuji. velvia and Sensia mostly, Provia too somewhat. But I didn't like the Kodaks either, even E100G. I guess I just prefer a film that asserts its character more? I mean, I'm not interested in neutrality with film--that's what digital is for, in my drawer. I also had trouble white-balancing the Kodak scans, whereas the Fuji films seemed to snap into the "right" levels pretty easily.

To each his own!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If it looks bluish, to me it's a strong indication that the film is either expired, Tungsten-balanced, or (even more likely) has suffered strong temperature changes prior to being exposed and developed.

I once had a roll with a lot of bluish cast: it was the ND filter. Believe it or not.

 

[Rayt]

Yes I know what you mean. Kodak slide film has always meant Kodachrome for me. I shot Ektachrome some 20 years ago and was blue in the face from all that blue. Filters are a must. It was Fujichrome and Kodachrome for me after that. E100VS was very good and I also like E100G but when Fuji 400FX came along that pretty much did it for me - a sort of color Tri-X.

 

[maddoc]

Provia400X, Astia100F, Velvia50 handle all quite well from my experience and so does KR-64.

 

[css9450]

I left Kodachrome 64 in favor of Provia 100 back in the late 90s. Actually, my changeover took a few years; the earlier formulations of Provia weren't quite to my liking. I do like the 100F stuff though!

 

[jpa66]

I only used to like Kodachrome for certain subjects, but found that the yellow/gold cast mentioned already bothered me on a lot of the shots. I prefer more subdued colors, which is why I like Astia. I do like the other Fujichromes, but only for specific purposes. I seem to remember that Agfachrome's colors were also fairly neutral and subdued.

I really like Kodak's Potra NC and Extar negative films, but their chromes just don't do it for me ( and really never did ).

Mabelsound:
I'm intrigued by the possibility of developing chromes on my own. What's the level of difficulty developing the chromes on your own? How much of a learning did you have to go through to get it right?

 

[x-ray]

80% of the film I've shot during my 42 years as a commercial photographer has been transparency film starting with various Kodachrome's, E3, E4 and now E6. In the earlier years it was all Kodak film and in later years I had a choice of Agfa and Fuji. Each film has it characteristics with each type such asKodachrome II, 25, X, Echtachrome commercial, X, High speed, EPP, EPY, EPR, E100 G, E100 GX, Astia, Provia, Velvia having distinct qualities unique to that particular type of film. Some are neutral, some cooler, some tungsten and some warmer plus some are pastel like E3 Commercial, and some contrasty and saturated like Velvia. It's less of a problem now than ten years ago but batch to batch of the same film will vary considerably. In commercial sheet film boxes a sheet of recommended filtrations and speeds at different exposure speeds was given. There are fewer variations now but but they still exist. If I were to shoot a critical job on film today I would select the film that most matches the subject and desired look and then do a series of tests. I have always tested every batch of color transparency film. I've always heard people say Kodak is blue but in t
ens of thousands of rolls and sheets I've never seen it unless the processing was out of spec. Kodak can go cool and fuji goes magenta if processing is out of whack. Blue indicated the PH of the color developer is too acid and yellow indicated too alkaline. Good labs run control strips and adjust PH and replenish properly. E6 is a critical process in that regard.

I always loved E100SW or GX for warm skin tones and E100S ,G and EPR for neutral tones. E100VS is a nice saturated film without the harsh contrast and blocked shadows of Velvia. Astia is a beautiful neutral medium contrast film that is designed for scanning. Provia is the film I use for punch and saturation with people. Velvia is too contrasty and death to light skin tones but lovely with black skin. Velvia is my least favorite of the batch. I would rather boost contrast and saturation when I scan rather than trying o tame contrast with Velvia. You can not add detail to shadows and highlights but you can easily simulate the contrast and saturation with photoshop.

 

[amateriat]

I recall the E4 Ektachromes being seriously blue, but E4 was being phased out just as I was getting serious about shooting. When the E6 films hit the scene, I only shot the Pro version, which is likely the reason why I had little truck with color rendition (the fact that I got the stuff processed PDQ might have helped). Fuji's chromes were pretty good, although I never cared much for the grain structure of Provia 400.

This is pretty much academic to me now, as about 80% of my color shooting is with color neg (mostly from the Portra family, with some Ektar and Fuji Pro 400/800 thrown in), 10% digital capture, and the rest slide film, almost entirely Kodak E200.


- Barrett

 

[Al Kaplan]

Kodachrome II was the only slide film that I enjoyed using. I shot plenty of various Ektachromes when the jobs required it though.

Ektachrome Infrared was a really fun film to use for certain shots. Green grass and leaves came out in shades of magenta and you had to bracket like crazy because your meter didn't read infrared. It was expensive too.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Mabelsound:
I'm intrigued by the possibility of developing chromes on my own. What's the level of difficulty developing the chromes on your own? How much of a learning did you have to go through to get it right?

jpa, it worked right off the bat, no learning curve. There are a few caveats, though... 1) it's most feasible if you're going to be shooting a LOT of slide film in a short time, as the shelf life of the diluted chemistry is rather brief. 2) you have to increase dev times every two rolls, and it's already quite time-consuming (an hour, basically). 3) Agitation every 15 seconds. 4) High temperatures that have to be carefully maintained. You can do it in a sink but have to be vigilant. 5) If you just buy a liter, it's rather expensive, 4 or 5 dollars a roll. But if you buy the 5-liter package (which you needn't mix all at once), it is much more economical. But as I said you need to be shooting a lot of film.

Here's a link to my results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157622460310788/

 

[jpa66]

jpa, it worked right off the bat, no learning curve.

Thanks for the info. Thanks also to chippy's comments. It's definitely intriguing, but I'll most likely just keep getting it developed at the lab until I start shooting a whole lot of it, as it won't be much difference cost-wise.

 

[johannielscom]

To the OP: have much film left in the cooler? I'd strike you a deal if shipping to EU is no trouble.

Kodak slides scan very well with me, color balancing in PS is no trouble for me.

 

[jpa66]

To the OP: have much film left in the cooler? I'd strike you a deal if shipping to EU is no trouble.

Kodak slides scan very well with me, color balancing in PS is no trouble for me.

Sorry, all I've got left is a roll of Kodachrome 64, which I'd better shot relatively soon!

 

[rovnguy]

I've never had a problem with Kodachrome. Once upon a time, long ago I shot Agfachrome CT-18 (ASA 50).

 

[x-ray]

I've never had a problem with Kodachrome. Once upon a time, long ago I shot Agfachrome CT-18 (ASA 50).

CT18 was a beautiful soft rendering film. Slightly warm and handled pastels nicely.
Unfortunately I had problems with Kodachrome processing particularly as Kodak got out of the processing business.