Advantages of Kodachrome?

alan doyle · Feb 6, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
No.
Consider:
1. Sourcing it. Virtually impossible in many countries. What's the attraction?

i would be surprised if you have any local e6 labs near you.
and if you have for how much longer..
most of us have digital but still like shooting film.
i use a nikon f6 and find i keep coming back to kodachrome.
i remember in 1990 like most i was stunned by the look of velvia and my kodachrome use dropped..i then started shooting kodachrome 200 and loved it's grain structure...i now shoot mainly fuji and k64..
if people choose to continue to use the oldest colour film still being made for reasons,photographic or sentimental.
is it not just as valid as you with your G9 digital snappy camera.

AgX · Feb 6, 2009

Alan,

I live in the german province an can still reach an E-6 lab by bike.

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 6, 2009

alan doyle said:
Poisson Du Jour said:

No.
Consider:
1. Sourcing it. Virtually impossible in many countries. What's the attraction?

i would be surprised if you have any local e6 labs near you.
and if you have for how much longer..
most of us have digital but still like shooting film.
i use a nikon f6 and find i keep coming back to kodachrome.
i remember in 1990 like most i was stunned by the look of velvia and my kodachrome use dropped..i then started shooting kodachrome 200 and loved it's grain structure...i now shoot mainly fuji and k64..
if people choose to continue to use the oldest colour film still being made for reasons,photographic or sentimental.
is it not just as valid as you with your G9 digital snappy camera.

Click to expand...

I have 5 labs within easy reach, including a 24hr drop-off and 2 individuals running their own E6. Three RVP 135s (2 RVP100F, 1 RDPIII sheet) in this am for sleeving.

accozzaglia · Feb 6, 2009

Nah. Just look in a current thread in this subforum that's about as commented upon this week as this thread is. And there you shall find what PE is tired of repeating.

Time for an exhaustive FAQ (HAY WAITE A SEC) to cover all technical, aesthetic, sourcing, processing, push/pull, scanning aspects of Kodachrome, once and for all. Perhaps there's a certain forum designed just for this?

Wolfeye said:
I'll look up some of the old threads.

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 6, 2009

<sigh>
I reckon the thread is heading for the same fate as the digital discussion.
Waiting for the guy who said recently in the disastrous digital discourse: "OK dead horse, meet baton...".

accozzaglia · Feb 6, 2009

Poisson du Jour --

It's really not a big deal. This conversation is just a conversation between people, nothing more beyond a bit informative and even a bit entertaining. If you don't use Kodachrome, then you don't use it. If it's for professional limitations that you retired its use in your own applications, then that's that. Shoot what works for you and your interests alone.

For others, time is not so much of the essence. If it were, then shooting with something which yields immediacy should be the ticket. For some people, something like E-6 processing has to be sent out because of their remote living location, and the turnaround time could be a week, owing to speed of postal service. It assumes of course that they aren't able to process it themselves.

As for Yanks in the Midwestern states, they could probably get back Kodachrome even faster than that. It's all relative.

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 6, 2009

accozzaglia said:
I feel it is tantamount to looking through an actual glass window which faces directly out into the past in ways that no other colour imaging process I've known can replicate. It's enough to take a hammer to that glass and just walk out through the hole.

Absolutely. This crystallizes precisely the reason why I feel the way I do about this film. And those images are magnificent. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

In 1965 my late father gathered his Little League baseball team together and sat us down for a group photo. He used his cherished Kodak Retina Ia to make it. We still have the camera--and the slide. That 35mm transparency today is still astonishing in ways I almost cannot describe.

If I've told one person, I've told literally dozens these exact words: "You know, I look at this photograph of me all those years ago, and I still feel as if I could reach right through that slide back into the past and straighten up the collar on my uniform."

I have never felt the same way about any E-6 slide I have looked at to this day. Make no mistake. Those are good. Real good. But they just do not have the same as presence as Kodachrome. Nothing does.

Its final demise will indeed be a crime, because there will never be anything like it again.

Ken

accozzaglia · Feb 6, 2009

Cheers, Ken. The shots contained therein ranged between ca. 1941 and 2009. The very first one in the grouping is perhaps my favourite Kodachrome shot of all time.

Ken Nadvornick said:
Absolutely. This crystallizes precisely the reason why I feel the way I do about this film. And those images are magnificent. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

alan doyle · Feb 6, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
alan doyle said:

I have 5 labs within easy reach, including a 24hr drop-off and 2 individuals running their own E6. Three RVP 135s (2 RVP100F, 1 RDPIII sheet) in this am for sleeving.

Click to expand...

lucky man sounds like film boom with no bust in your town.
sounds like film is fighting back hurrah..films comin back and digital is dead.
but alas in the rest of the world it is not so positive i know 6 e6 places that have gone.
enjoy the boom while you can..
just like i will enjoy the outdated k64

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 6, 2009

It's only the wise that use the E6. We E6ers get some funny stares from mums and dads when we ask for film and E6 then rattle off a (seemingly) impressive list of tech instructions. Sadly, this town is crazy for consumer d*****l.
Plenty of film available in all the fridges I go peeking into, including the sheet film I need to refine my skills in large format.
IF it were available, IF it could be processed locally and quickly, I would use Kodachrome 200— just to see how my skills today compare with those of 25 years ago. I never used K25 or K64 (I didn't have a tripod during my bicycle touring days, for weight considerations). With all due respect, it seems the USA is crazy for it...

PKM-25 · Feb 6, 2009

The best thing about those who are passionate about Kodachrome, we just don't care what you say, we are totally right in using it for why we do.

I shoot over 70,000 digital images a year, I shoot lots of 120 E-6, I know what I am looking at. And I know why I shoot Kodachrome.

Go ahead, call it nostalgia, bye gones, whatever you want. The bottom line is that people are going to use it until it is totally gone.

And this keeping on about 64 being so-so and 25 being the second coming, well, I have over 200 rolls of top notch, perfect condition KM-25, yes it is incredible film, but K64 is darn near as good as it. So much so that if you look through my galleries on Flicker, well, can you really tell the difference?

The funny thing is, there are films I don't use, some I like more than others, but I love photography so much, that I would never slam anyone's choice in an emulsion.

I use to like Velvia a lot, but now I only use it in 120. So I should slam it to be cool and in vogue, huh.....?

accozzaglia · Feb 6, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
It's only the wise that use the E6.

Wise for what, exactly?

PKM-25 · Feb 6, 2009

You get better and better at nailing the essence of things, I really enjoy how and what you write.

Thank you for writing this..

accozzaglia said:
C'est assez simple: the end difference, emotionally, is entirely aesthetic and subjective.

Whereas a great shot with E-6 emulsions (of many types or makers) can leave me saying, "Wow," I find with Kodachrome that the same kind of shot leaves me agape, unable to speak, and in some contexts makes me cry. This is especially apparent with shots that look like they were shot about two weeks ago when they were really shot well more than two decades -- or even two family generations -- ago. It has become really easy now to play "spot the Kodachrome" when looking through online photo albums, knowing fully well that no matter how amazing the scan looks, the actual emulsion on a light box is a zillion times more amazing.

Technology notwithstanding, its loyalty and continuation into an eighth decade derive from this ineffable je ne sais quoi. Accurate or not, perfect or not, it still does something that other films have not: inspire visceral emotions. I feel it is tantamount to looking through an actual glass window which faces directly out into the past in ways that no other colour imaging process I've known can replicate. It's enough to take a hammer to that glass and just walk out through the hole.

I'm definitely subjective but not maudlin about it. I love other emulsions for their own reasons, and I discover things I love about new-to-me ones every so often. I've also seen the most boring stuff shot with Kodachrome. If you've never tried shooting with it before, then just try it. Do it right now and decide what you think when they come back.

r-s · Feb 7, 2009

accozzaglia said:
C'est assez simple: the end difference, emotionally, is entirely aesthetic and subjective.

Whereas a great shot with E-6 emulsions (of many types or makers) can leave me saying, "Wow," I find with Kodachrome that the same kind of shot leaves me agape, unable to speak, and in some contexts makes me cry. This is especially apparent with shots that look like they were shot about two weeks ago when they were really shot well more than two decades -- or even two family generations -- ago. It has become really easy now to play "spot the Kodachrome" when looking through online photo albums, knowing fully well that no matter how amazing the scan looks, the actual emulsion on a light box is a zillion times more amazing.

Technology notwithstanding, its loyalty and continuation into an eighth decade derive from this ineffable je ne sais quoi. Accurate or not, perfect or not, it still does something that other films have not: inspire visceral emotions. I feel it is tantamount to looking through an actual glass window which faces directly out into the past in ways that no other colour imaging process I've known can replicate. It's enough to take a hammer to that glass and just walk out through the hole.

I'm definitely subjective but not maudlin about it. I love other emulsions for their own reasons, and I discover things I love about new-to-me ones every so often. I've also seen the most boring stuff shot with Kodachrome. If you've never tried shooting with it before, then just try it. Do it right now and decide what you think when they come back.

You hit the nail on the head.

Nothing else approaches the "thereness" of Kodachrome. It gives a *presence* that is lacking in any other medium. You might say it was the original hologram (yeah, yeah, spare me, y'all nitpickers -- I *know* the difference, OK?)

For me, looking at a good Kodachrome is just like being there. It creates the *sensation* of "being there" in a way that words cannot communicate. Sounds trite, but it has to be experienced to be understood.

BTW, your photo of the Rooskie pavilion from Expo 67 -- I was there! I zoomed in to see if I could see myself, or my father, or Adele (what ever happened to Adele? the years, the years...)

I remember buying some weird Russian cigarettes in that building. The one that sticks out the most in my mind after these 42 years (yikes!) was like a fat soda straw with a short stub of cigarette paper at the end of the tube, with a short wad of tobacco inside the paper section. The long "straw" section was an integral cigarette holder.

The other thing I recall was that the label on one of the packs (I *think* it was the "fat straw" type but it might have been one of the traditional types) -- it was a painting of some cossacks (with a samovar?) who were clearly *way* out of it, whooping it up with great gusto.

r-s · Feb 7, 2009

Ken Nadvornick said:
I have never felt the same way about any E-6 slide I have looked at to this day. Make no mistake. Those are good. Real good. But they just do not have the same as presence as Kodachrome. Nothing does.

Seriously, I *swear* I did NOT read your post before *I* used the "P-word" in mine.

There's no other word for it. I use the term because, in the audio context, it conveys the same meaning; a good speaker, with a good tweeter, will supply sound that -- by itself, you would probably never even hear, period -- but, when *included* with the sound you *do* hear, it "takes you there" to the place where the music is happening. Without that "presence" you are listening to "sounds that are a copy of music" -- but *with* it, you're listening to THE music, period. Damn, I really miss the ability to hear into double-digit KCPS. Getting older... sucks.

Other-than-Kodachrome images can be good. Very good. Excellent, even.

But they're still *pictures*. They don't transport you to the scene -- they don't *immerse* you on a visceral level to the point that you literally *feel* "there" in the scene.

I dread the day when my ability to enjoy Kodachrome to its fullest is relegated to the same place my ability to enjoy *musical* presence now resides -- memories... the past.

I'm not a bigot. I use other emulsions -- and enjoy them. I even use d* -- in fact, I recently bought a DSLR (a Pentax K100D, factory refurb) -- I got it because 1) it will accept my pile of screw mount Takumars (and my K-mount lenses too, but mostly I have screw mount), 2) it has a decent (read "real," in-body, floating sensor) shake-reduction system, and, 3) it was pretty stinkin' cheap (NWIH would I have paid anything *close* to street price for it).

I'll be using it for stuff that needs quick results (i.e., stuff for websites, for which in most cases even a low-end P&S is severe overkill, etc.), and, I *plan* on using it as a "virtual Polaroid" for my Kodachrome work. I don't know that anyone has done that sort of thing before, but I *think* it ought to be something that can be done.

So, I am an "eclectic embracer" of "other-than-Kodachrome" but if I could only use *one* sensitized material, it'd be Kodachrome, no doubt about it.

It seems to me that Kodachrome's most vociferous detractors are those who don't *use* it -- "experts" on what they have not experienced, lecturing those who *do* use and enjoy the product.

PS: Looking at scanned copies of Kodachromes -- on a computer monitor -- is NOT tantamount to "looking at a Kodachrome" -- you simply *cannot* experience the "presence" by looking at an electronic display that shows a digitized *copy* of the real thing. It's like trying to taste a wax apple -- and then deciding that no one in his right mind would eat apples.

Tim Gray · Feb 7, 2009

It's a shame K200 was discontinued. I bought up a couple rolls when it was stopped, which was right around the time I started shooting film. I like it more than K64, which I think I like more than K25. Haha.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 7, 2009

Poisson Du Jour said:
<sigh>
I reckon the thread is heading for the same fate as the digital discussion.
Waiting for the guy who said recently in the disastrous digital discourse: "OK dead horse, meet baton...".

Hey, did I just hear my name?

More on topic: I think the "thereness" of Kodachrome has something to do with the fact that today's Kodachrome still looks similar enough to the Kodachrome of previous eras, so that it is the only film which has captured at the same time the old and the new.

I keep shaking my head in disbelief at the colours that people in previous eras used for their dress, their homes, their cars, etc. My father was at Expo 67 as well (we're from Montréal), and has a large amount of Kodachromes of the exhibition--when I saw the USSR pavillion photo, I thought for a moment that it was his!

But knowing that these colours are seen through the prism of Kodachrome, I can more or less reverse-map how it would look like in reality because I've also seen the modern world through Kodachrome.

And I still can't believe that people dressed "like that."

accozzaglia · Feb 7, 2009

r-s said:
BTW, your photo of the Rooskie pavilion from Expo 67 -- I was there! I zoomed in to see if I could see myself, or my father, or Adele

Just to clarify: none of the images to which I linked were shot by me. I really don't shoot anything that splendidly. Each however represents some of the very best examples I have seen shot with any given iteration of Kodachrome -- from ISO6 K-11 to ISO200 K-14. And from different eras and different photographer styles generate the diverse ways people have used Kodachrome over the generations.

alan doyle · Feb 7, 2009

you have some shots of tommy oshima,his work is fantastic a real antitode,to the digital tidal wave.
his favorite stock for a long time was kodachrome,he gave up i think when sales were stopped last year in japan.
and when his local lab closed.
his work has a real cinematic quality a man to approach if you were doing a book on kodachrome.

Vonder · Feb 8, 2009

I project them too

r-s said:
Seriously, I *swear* I did NOT read your post before *I* used the "P-word" in mine.

PS: Looking at scanned copies of Kodachromes -- on a computer monitor -- is NOT tantamount to "looking at a Kodachrome" -- you simply *cannot* experience the "presence" by looking at an electronic display that shows a digitized *copy* of the real thing. It's like trying to taste a wax apple -- and then deciding that no one in his right mind would eat apples.

I used K64 to shoot my daughter's birthday party last year. In mixed light, tungten and flash, there was a horrid blue cast. The end result is that when I projected them, both my wife and I went... ugh. These are awful.

In my world, which is very often exactly *that* sort of shooting condition, K64 sucks. A week later I shot a roll of K64 for Fall foliage. Nice, very nice pics. K64 is not a bad film but I won't be using it again. Too much of my world is *not* Fall foliage.

YMWV

PKM-25 · Feb 8, 2009

Advantages of Kodachrome?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency