First roll of Kodachrome!

[gatewaycityca]

I shot my first roll of Kodachome, and I just got the slides back today. I'm stunned! This is the first time I have ever used slide film. It looks so amazing, just seeing these little positive images in my hands. I wish I had tried this a long time ago. I guess I won't know for sure how they look until I project them (or put them in some kind slide viewer?), but from what I can see they look great. The colors are awesome. I'm definitely going to get a projector though. I figured that if I'm going to do things the old school way and use Kodachrome, I might as well do it right!

Now I can understand why people like Kodachrome so much. I just wish I had done this sooner, since it might not be around that much longer. I only got seriously interested in photography about maybe 2 years ago though.

The thing is too that this was expired film! I wrote to someone on a photography group on Yahoo and said that I wanted to try Kodachrome. So he sent me a bunch of rolls of Kodachrome 64. The film expired in 1993! (That's funny...that means I probably would have been in middle school when he bought it). I don't know how it was stored. I think he said he did keep it in a refrigerator. But it looks great, like what I would expect new film to look like.
I should have had the slides scanned, so I could show a few of the pictures here. If I figure out a way to record them and upload them online, I'll post a few pictures. (Maybe take pictures from the screen if I project them? That's kind of lame though)

I'll be shooting more Kodachrome from now on. And probably more slide film in general. Maybe some Fuji Velvia too. I haven't even projected the slides yet, and I'm already hooked just looking at them!

 

[Ektagraphic]

Certainly get a projector but beware about projector caused fading...Welcome to the World of Kodachrome! Please be sure to hook up on The Kodachrome Project you can find in my signature. You should have some prints made. They will be stunning too! Kodachrome 64 has a great shelf life! Some people have used 20 year old un-refridgerated film without a problem. Pleas keep off the Fuji and support Kodak . Kodak would love to drop Ektachrome and Kodachrome and we have to stop this. They are both great films! All of the Ektacrhromes are wonderful. Some of the more classic ones left, Ektachrome 64T and Ektachrome 100 Plus are great.

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Certainly get a projector but beware about projector caused fading...

Nah... Kodachrome has a reputation of worse resistance to this type of fading than E6 films, but it's nothing you need to worry about in practice. Certainly they withstand hours and hours of projection without any noticable fade. I've never seen a Kodachrome slide that has faded from projection - have you?

Pleas keep off the Fuji and support Kodak .

Nonsense. One manufacturer of slide film is not enough. The excellent line of Fujichromes needs our support too, and Fuji should be applauded for their great work with these products.

 

[stwb]

Not to offend, but the first roll of slide that anyone shoots is usually a special moment irregardless of film type. In my limited experience I don't find anything special about Kodachrome versus other slides. The first roll of slide I shot was Sensia 100 and I was wowed as much by the lowly Sensia as my first Kodachrome experience. Given the expense of developing Kodachrome it is doubtful I would shoot it again. There are plenty of really, really, good alternatives including Fuji and Kodak.

 

[Excalibur2]

Not to offend, but the first roll of slide that anyone shoots is usually a special moment irregardless of film type. In my limited experience I don't find anything special about Kodachrome versus other slides. The first roll of slide I shot was Sensia 100 and I was wowed as much by the lowly Sensia as my first Kodachrome experience. Given the expense of developing Kodachrome it is doubtful I would shoot it again. There are plenty of really, really, good alternatives including Fuji and Kodak.

erm about 35-40 years ago I used Kodachrome, Perutz (never heard of it?) and Agfa...the Perutz colours have faded (Agfa is not too bad) but Kodachrome is the same now as when I first took the shots....I have no idea on the longevity of other modern slide film, but if you want a reliable slide film to last at least 40 plus years? go Kodachrome.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Nonsense. One manufacturer of slide film is not enough. The excellent line of Fujichromes needs our support too, and Fuji should be applauded for their great work with these products.

I personally do not care for any of the looks of the Fuji Films. Many of the look cartoon like. I think all of the Kodak films offer a more natural look....Even some of the more vivid color films.

 

[StorminMatt]

I personally do not care for any of the looks of the Fuji Films. Many of the look cartoon like. I think all of the Kodak films offer a more natural look....Even some of the more vivid color films.

I too feel that Fuji films look too 'cartoonish' for my tastes. Even Astia. Speaking of this, I don't know if this is true or not. But someone told me recently that Fuji films look 'cartoonish' because the color balance is biased for good scanning rather than analog viewing (ie projection, light table, slide viewers, etc). Does anyone know if this is true?

 

[Colin Corneau]

The larger issue is choice - we're all richer for having variety when shooting slide positives.

Kudos to everyone who helps us get our film fix. I just hope there'll always be a Kodachrome choice to make.

 

[gatewaycityca]

I don't have enough experience with slide films...obviously, since this was my FIRST roll of slide film. But I have disagree about Fuji films looking too "catoony." I've used a lot of Fuji color print films, especially Fuji 200 and I really liked it. I love the saturated colors, and to me it didn't look cartoony.

But it all comes down to taste. Some people have even said the new Ektar film from Kodak is too saturated, but I like it.

I plan to shoot BOTH Fuji and Kodak. I think we need to support both of them. But I'll tell you what I'll do...maybe I'll take turns for a while. I'll shoot a bunch of Kodachrome for a while, and then shoot Fuji Velvia for a while. That's what I do with my black and white negative film. I'll shoot some Kodak Plus-X for a few months, then shoot a rew rolls of Arista and Ilford. I think we need to patronize and support ALL the film manufacturers as much as we can.

 

[Q.G.]

Wouldn't it be better if we divide the task?
You use Fuji, i use Kodak, someone else uses Ilford, and so on?

That way, we get to use our favourite films only, while supporting the film manufacturer we would least like to go away.
;-)

 

[Removed Account]

I love the look of Kodachrome, especially for snapshots. To me, even as a 24 year old, Kodachrome just looks like memories. I can't explain it but when I look at a Kodachrome slide it always seems like the slide looks exactly as I remember the event. I have some great shots on Fujichrome Provia 100F but they have a different look to them, they look like a photograph. Not a bad thing at all but certainly worlds away from the Kodachrome look.

 

[MattKing]

There are differences, and although subtle, they can be profound.

If the OP sees and feels something special, he/she might just have found the medium that is perfect for him/her.

I was looking through some boxes in my storage area today, and came across two 4x5 internegs I had made from from a couple of 35mm Kodachromes I shot in 1979. The enlargements I had had printed from them way back then have long ago faded and recently been discarded (poorly framed, and hung in all sorts of areas where the light levels were way too high for longevity). I may try to find someone who can print from the internegs again, to see how they've held up. Alternatively, I can also just project the slides, because they seem to have held up well during these last three decades .

In any event, I still like those 30 year old images, and I can certainly tell that they were shot on Kodachrome.

Matt

 

[StorminMatt]

Wouldn't it be better if we divide the task?
You use Fuji, i use Kodak, someone else uses Ilford, and so on?

That way, we get to use our favourite films only, while supporting the film manufacturer we would least like to go away.
;-)

Good point. It's not like any manufacturer is going to sell MORE film if everyone shoots multiple brands. After all, if I was to shoot Fuji sometimes, and a Fuji aficionado shot Kodak at times, then that person's occasional purchase of Kodak products would only serve to make up for their loss of revenue resulting from my shooting an occasional roll of Fuji. Not to mention that neither of us would likely be happy about shooting a film we consider less than satisfying.

Ilford, of course, is another matter. After all, most people who shoot color already shoot the occasional roll of B+W.

 

[lxdude]

The cartoonish look referred to is with Fuji slide films, and it's nothing new. I tried Fujichrome back in the 70's and it just had a false look to it, though sunsets and flower shots looked nice.
They have not lasted. Blues have gone seriously magenta, while other colors are holding up somewhat better. Ektachromes and Agfachromes from the same period still are good. The Kodachromes are awesome. K-64 was my standard film. I only wish I'd shot more K-25.
Modern Photography magazine called Fujichrome's colors "posterish".
I'm trying some E-6 films now, as I'm playing around with medium format, so am shooting some of everything. It will be my first Velvia and Provia, and my first of the newer Ektachromes. We'll see. I know I'll be shooting lots of 35mm so long as K-64 is around.

 

[Q.G.]

Ilford, of course, is another matter. After all, most people who shoot color already shoot the occasional roll of B+W.

Yes. More than an occasional roll too i'd guess.

But there is a choice there too: Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, and more.
So would it not be the same?

 

[StorminMatt]

I don't have enough experience with slide films...obviously, since this was my FIRST roll of slide film. But I have disagree about Fuji films looking too "catoony." I've used a lot of Fuji color print films, especially Fuji 200 and I really liked it. I love the saturated colors, and to me it didn't look cartoony.

But it all comes down to taste. Some people have even said the new Ektar film from Kodak is too saturated, but I like it.

The 'Fuji look' (or, for that matter, the 'Kodak look') is not really about saturation. For instance, Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome E100G are both quite a bit more saturated than, say, Astia (both are closer to Provia in terms of saturation). Kodachrome 25 is ALOT more saturated than Astia. But to me, Astia still looks like a Fuji film and not a Kodak film. Even if its colors are not especially vibrant, the rendering is still typical Fuji. Furthermore, Ektachrome E100VS is perhaps even MORE saturated than Velvia 50. But it doesn't look anything like Velvia. It's something completely different altogether.

Yes. More than an occasional roll too i'd guess.

But there is a choice there too: Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, and more.
So would it not be the same?

It certainly would be the same. Interestingly, I also tend to avoid Fuji B+W, but for a completely different reason. Specifically, I like slides. And Fuji B+W is not good for reversal processing (of all Fuji non-C41 B+W, dr5 will only process Neopan 400, and only in Sepia). But both Kodak and Ilford non-C41 B+W (as well as the myriad of Eastern European B+W) make GREAT slides with dr5.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Well I, for one, wouldn't be without a few rolls of Velvia in my bag - especially at this time of year. Why? Because on Sunday, I will be knee-deep in a forest in S.E. England which is carpeted in bluebells.

As much as I agree that Fuji films can be a bit 'blousy' at the orange, pink and red end of the spectrum, I love the vibrant blues, purples and greens they provide - and that's the exact colour combination I'm aiming to shoot this weekend.

Someone mentioned 'Perutz' earlier in the thread. A few years ago, when I was moving house, I binned quite a few boxes of old Perutz slides as they'd acquired a greenish tinge - most noticeable in the darker / shade areas. From memory, the reason I gave up on Perutz was the tendency towards green shadows. Did anyone else notice this or was I just unlucky where I used to get the slides processed?

Ilford also used to make slide film. Does it still exist? Even Polaroid had a go. Admittedly, I was completely underwhelmed by it but fair play to them....

Kodak or Fuji? Let's spread our favours around and make sure that they're all still around in many years to come.

 

[Ektagraphic]

The only Fuji I will ever be caught with is the FP-100 and that still hurts. I just don't care for the company. I will say that Crystal Archive is nice paper, but I sort of like my Endura more.

 

[spark]

As long as there are multiple suppliers making money on this stuff we will be getting good products, though maybe not in the prolifieration of years past. Slide film is a matter of taste. Personally my favorite slide film is the "Elite Chrome 100" for the color rendition and the good but not too cartoony saturation. K64 is a bit sharper. Astia is a bit more subdued. Velvia is wild, but it's great if you're shooting a flower show. Fuji Trebi 100 (not sold in the US) looks a lot like the old Ektachrome-X I used to use in the 70's. Hard to put my finger on why.

 

[ntenny]

The cartoonish look referred to is with Fuji slide films, and it's nothing new. I tried Fujichrome back in the 70's and it just had a false look to it, though sunsets and flower shots looked nice.

My dad, who had some involvement with Fuji's marketing[1] back in the 70s, tells me that some actual research was done on this difference at the time, with the conclusion that, basically (and on the average), Fuji's colours looked "right" to a Japanese eye, while Kodak's looked "right" to an American eye.

I don't think anyone attempted to determine whether the difference was culturally or genetically mediated---the point was, it was there, and it goes some way towards explaining the difference of "look" between the two companies: It's a feature!

[1] Does anyone remember a Fujifilm advert from the late 70s with a picture of a little girl in a Mary Poppins costume?

-NT

 

[StorminMatt]

Ilford also used to make slide film.

Essentially, they still do. Any of their non-C41 B+W film can be reversal processed.

 

[StorminMatt]

My dad, who had some involvement with Fuji's marketing[1] back in the 70s, tells me that some actual research was done on this difference at the time, with the conclusion that, basically (and on the average), Fuji's colours looked "right" to a Japanese eye, while Kodak's looked "right" to an American eye.

I don't think anyone attempted to determine whether the difference was culturally or genetically mediated---the point was, it was there, and it goes some way towards explaining the difference of "look" between the two companies: It's a feature!

[1] Does anyone remember a Fujifilm advert from the late 70s with a picture of a little girl in a Mary Poppins costume?

-NT

This seems quite possible, and is possibly no different in origin than the differences in the way that Americans and Europeans hear music. In any case, I could never really put a finger on the exact differences between Kodak and Fuji. But after looking through a number of my slides, one thing that I REALLY notice about Fuji vs Kodak is that Fuji films tend to more strongly overemphasize SUBTLE colors vs Kodak films. In other words, in a side by side comparison, there does not seem to be as much of a difference between, say, Provia and E100G if we are looking at a subject that features lots of bright and bold colors. But more subtle colors seem unnaturally emphasized with Fuji films. One example of this is the blue cast that is often seen in shots of scenic vistas. This seems to be MUCH better controlled with E100G or Kodachrome (to the point of not even being a problem) than it is with Provia or Astia. Also, the greenish cast from fluorescent lighting is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more objectionable with Provia than with Ektachrome EPN or Kodachrome (both of which looked fine). And greens that are rendered deep and dark with Kodak films seem to be more of a yellowish, kelly green with Fuji. Some of these things can be taken care of with proper filters. But the way I see it, if Kodak can get the job done for me without filters, why bother?

 

[Ektagraphic]

This seems quite possible, and is possibly no different in origin than the differences in the way that Americans and Europeans hear music. In any case, I could never really put a finger on the exact differences between Kodak and Fuji. But after looking through a number of my slides, one thing that I REALLY notice about Fuji vs Kodak is that Fuji films tend to more strongly overemphasize SUBTLE colors vs Kodak films. In other words, in a side by side comparison, there does not seem to be as much of a difference between, say, Provia and E100G if we are looking at a subject that features lots of bright and bold colors. But more subtle colors seem unnaturally emphasized with Fuji films. One example of this is the blue cast that is often seen in shots of scenic vistas. This seems to be MUCH better controlled with E100G or Kodachrome (to the point of not even being a problem) than it is with Provia or Astia. Also, the greenish cast from fluorescent lighting is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more objectionable with Provia than with Ektachrome EPN or Kodachrome (both of which looked fine). And greens that are rendered deep and dark with Kodak films seem to be more of a yellowish, kelly green with Fuji. Some of these things can be taken care of with proper filters. But the way I see it, if Kodak can get the job done for me without filters, why bother?

Finally someone that sees Kodak the way I do!!

 

[Q.G.]

Yeah... You two are the only two who like Kodak film for what it is ...

 

[marsbars]

On a side note, not sure if it is for sure or not. But on the subject of color rendition. A book that I have on my shelf on photography for beginners states in the section on what kind of film to chose, slide or print. Makes a statement that when it comes to chrome film the color of the box gives a good indication on the color temperatures that said film leans to. And from my experience the yellows and reds are in the Kodak realm and the blues and greens are in Fuji's corner. Whether the packaging colors and a films color rendition is an intentional thing or not I don't know.