=======================================================
-> This is The 'SPORRS' Mailing List
-> Info File: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/infosporrs.htm
-> Note: Remember to include your name in each list post or reply.
-> Please delete all unnecessary quoted text from the original message!
=======================================================

Sam Reeves wrote:

> The biggest advantage of Kodachrome is its color balance.
I find it: KM25= too neutral/magenta, KR64=too flat/green and KL200=  too
red/grainy and all flavors too gray/flat in less than full sun.  

I was kidding when I asked what it's advantages were, I shot it for 15
years.  But if you like Kodachrome, then knock yourself out.  It's a shame
though that many people that are die-hard Kodachrome users have never tried
anything else (I don't mean just one roll), so they really don't have a
fair comparison or enough personal experience with their own type of
photography on these films to compare.

> Any E-6
> process film I will guarantee it will have an oversaturated, and or a
warm
> color balance.
If that's a money back guarantee that you are supplying, then you need to
write me a check.  There are all flavors, and again we are generalizing, so
sorry, I will have to file this one with the zoom/prime lens discussion. :)

> (Might this have something to do with the color couplers being
> added to the film rather than being in the film itself?)
The only advantage I see to that process is that it appears to give
Kodachrome a better exposure latitude with bright light sources
(headlights) like a B&W film (which is what Kodachrome is until the color
dies are added in processing), but it still fails in shadow detail which is
unfortunate.  You may think most E-6 is too saturated (Astia is VERY
accurate and neutral, BTW), but since Kodachrome is so flat, it would be
hard for you to see differently if you are used to a certain look.  I was
the same way for a long time.  Provia and Astia are more accurate against
color charts when exposed properly (and they scan better), but some people
still like that flat neutral green to magenta cast with Kodachrome.  It
seems that once a Kodachrome shooter sees one Velvia shot that was
underexposed, that they immediately brand all E-6 as too saturated (which
is about as bad as saying that all Kodachrome stinks because of several
dozen rolls of green 64).  

All of this, and my original reply was about the mailing and processing
situation with Kodachrome, and my opinion about paper vs. plastic mounts
for publication and mounting consistency purposes.   

> Kodachrome is the only reversal film which shows color as it happened.
Just like all zooms stink...

> Kodachrome is still the
> sharpest reversal film on the market today.
The resolving power of Kodachrome 25 and Velvia are nearly identical, and
the Fuji 100 ISO films exceed Kodachrome 64, which is also quite grainy
under a loupe.  E100 looks finer grained than Kodachrome 64 too.

> Finally, Kodachrome is archival.
Kodachrome was archival, and the newer Kodachrome still may be, but the new
E-6 exceeds it in simulated tests now.  Technology moves forward.  Sooner
or later you need to move with it.  Kodachrome is old technology by today's
standards, and even though it has seen a few subtle changes, sooner or
later the limitations of that old technology will be reached, if they
haven't already (kind of like when Canon had to change their lens mount;
I'm sure that eventually Nikon will have to do the same).  

I am not brand or film type loyal.  I shoot what works and looks the best,
not what some people tell me they think is the best.  There are several
reasons why most professional transparency work is done on Fujichrome
today.

> I have a ton of Kodachromes from both of my grandfathers that were taken
> almost 50 to 60 years ago and still look like they were taken today.
That's great, but the Kodachrome you are using today is different.  It went
through at least two changes that I know of because of environmental
concerns.  I've had people try to convince me that they could see this in
the slides, even though much of this is processing related.

> If you
> continuously project slides for events like lectures and so forth, you
want to
> copy your stuff on an E-6 film.
If you shoot it on E-6, they you can eliminate that problem entirely. 
Every film has it's applications, but there is no one film capable of
everything (which is why there is more than one type of film available, and
why we have choices).

> Kodachrome is meant to be in periods of
> prolonged dark storage.
And it would be if that's what I would submit for publication instead of
what I use today. :)

> The only other reason why your Kodachromes would fade
> like that is because they were not fully processed.  (There was
speculation in
> the Kodalux days if Kodalux was cutting corners in the process to save
money.)
(See environmental concern note above).  My worst faded Kodachromes are
from 1991 -1994.

>    Now this is not to bash E-6 films.
Surely not. :)

> I think they are great for other
> applications other than landscape photography, (i.e. fashion,
portraiture,
> advertising).
(Laughs!).  Almost all published color landscape photography is shot on
(large format) E-6 (Fujichrome and Ektachrome).  95% of my large format
photography, inside and out, is on Fujichrome Velvia, and most of my medium
format photography, (which includes a few trains!), is on one of the Fuji
100 ISO films. 

> One of my instructors at Foothill
> recently offered me 80 rolls of 120 Kodachrome in his freezer.  But I
smiled
> at him and asked "where am I going to get that processed??" 
Well, I've got 5 PK-120 mailers left here if they are still any good for
Kodachrome 120.  They are honored for 120 E-6 film, but I don't use mailers
anymore.  You can have then cheap if you want them.

Regards,

Dave

Dave Cohen
Photographer
Action Photographic Webmaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/home/

=======================================================
-> SPORRS: 'Serious Photographers Of Railroad Related Subjects'
-> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/
-> Message © 1998 SPORRS® - All Rights Reserved
=======================================================


Reply via email to