Kodachrome 64 - where does it shine/not shine?

Because of K64's reputed longevity, I shot a good bit of my son's birthday on it. The slides came back from Dwayne's yesterday. To put it mildly, yuck. These are the worst images I've seen in ages. The colors, when projected, are dull, in some cases mottled, and super high in contrast. Did I use K64 inappropriately? The camera was a Canon EOS 3 and nearly all phots were shot with direct flash.

So, if shooting party pics, inside, with flash, is a bad K64 situation, what exactly should it be used for? My Fuji Astia pics come back nicely colored in the same shooting situation.

In my own experience, I have found that K64 is not a particularly easy or forgiving film to use, and I don't use it with flash as it does, with my equipment and working, give harsh and blue-ish results. No doubt this could be tamed with some experimentation with exposure, filters, etc., but it's not worth the effort for me at least.

I think that the feature of Kodachrome generally (particularly K25) is the delicacy andaccuracy of the color rendering, which is not necessarily the most pleasing result in every case. Straight pictures in noon sunlight and many landscapes can look dull, but delicate shades in warmer lighting, and bright colors will be rendered remarkably well.

If I just want to shoot a few slides for record purposes, without worrying too much about lighting conditions, I'd use Astia, which is much more forgiving (and is a great film in itself, my 2nd choice if K64 vanished). But if I have lots of time, and conditions are right, I'll usually use Kodachrome with the confidence, if everything is spot-on, I'll get that unique look.

Kodachrome likes warm colors--browns and reds--and warm light that isn't too harsh.

In my not so humble opinion, I don't think Kodachrome is the best choice for family snapshooting. I would suggest any of the vanilla garden-variety C41 colo(u)r films instead.

I don't think I've *EVER* used a flash with Kodachrome. Kodachrome shines in natural light. Kodachrome does not shine with high contrast, and it can't take a joke as far as exposure is concerned.

Just my opinion ... YMMV

Direct on camera flash of human subject is much better with color negative film.

In my experience, when using flash with Kodachrome, it is better to use outdoors or, if electronic flash is absolutely necessary, bounce it. Whenever use flash with any K-14 films, I use one of my dwindling supply of flashbulbs, as they are closer to daylight than electronic flash (at least when working with Kodachrome).

Kodachrome is not a snapshot film. I agree. Also, direct flash is not good. It is also poor rendering pastels and neutrals. You are right, there are better films for color rendition out there now.

Why? Because it is an old film, designed in the 70s and a lot has changed in the mean time in film design.

PE

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry8300/4.5.0.55 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

I have gotten good results with it when using direct flash, but it's definitely not where the film shines. I like it for family snapshots if it's outside, and it's a perfect film for travel pictures IMO. It gives the 60s or 70s look to the projected slides. It also works great for fireworks pictures!

Not the most forgiving film, but can be the most rewarding. Shoot more of it and when you master it you will be glad you did.

Like I have said in many a post, Kodachrome is the great equalizer of films. It will show you how brilliant or how lacking you are as a photographer.

I rarely use it with flash, but when I do, I either bounce it off of practicals or gel it slightly warm and of course, underexpose the flash by a commensurate margin.

The film will do fine if you use proper technique.

What do you mean by `practicals´?

And by "slightly warm" do you mean 1/4 CTO gel or do you use more?

I've had very good results (in years past) with K64 and especially K25 used in macros with electronic flash (manual). Back in the day, we were always counciled to "know thy camera and flash as one knows thyself". For my usual macro rig it started at 1:1 macro at f/11 or f/13.5 @ 1/75 with K25, depending on the reflectance of the subject.

When I standardized on K64 for all, I did so because found the dynamic range of K64 was substantially longer and the color balance warmer when used with flash. What caused me to quit using the stuff was inconsistent and inconvenient processing, not anything lacking in the emulsion itself. Astia is the closest transparency film I've found to K64 in dynamic range and saturation, but it does have a different color bias.

If as the OP suggests, he shot Astia with good results in the same camera & flash in similar settings with good results, I'd first look to a bad processing run or suspect an irradiated courier drop (or one that was baked on the tarmac of an airport) before dismissing the underlying K64 emulsion with such a broad brush.

K25 was fantastic for macro--



K64 is nice for this kind of subject--

David A. Goldfarb said:

K25 was fantastic for macro--

Click to expand...

Or *is* if you have a stash..

K64= high contrst

IMHO, K64 is not the best choice for shooting a birthday party; it's just too contrasty when used with direct flash. Perhaps if the party were held under a transluscent tent, then you might have gotten away with it. K64 is best for landscapes outdoors, but not with a bright sun directly overhead.

You might be able to save those images if you scan them and adjust the color and contrast with SilverFast or some other software. But let's save that for a discussion outside of APUG.

PKM-25 said:

Or *is* if you have a stash..

Click to expand...

Heh. Sold my stash when the price started to get nutty. Better investment than the stock market!

I find that soft outdoor photos are better for K-64.

I avoid K64 in really harsh light too, but it can give lovely colours under the right conditions:



I even liked the 200 versions colour in subdued light:


Yes my daughter has a green streak in her hair! (from felt tip pens)!!

Kodachrome is good for anything you want to apply it to, you just have to use the proper technique.

Remember, Kodachrome is the consistency, so everything else is the variable and that is a good thing, that is where you can really dial in style and flavor.

As for the questions of what is a "Practical" or what gel do I use:

A practical is a term used in the motion picture industry to describe artificial light that gives off a natural or practical look on the subject.

For example, on camera flash only looks practical if you spend all of your time standing under a flashlight or walk around in life with a headlamp on. Not very natural or practical.

A more practical light source is to bounce the light off of the ceiling or better yet, out of the corner of the wall to mimic a lamp. This tends to spread the light around much like a lamp shade would, giving lower contrast and more even lighting. Direct flash works great to add a tiny bit of fill and looks fantastic when it is gelled to match the predominate color cast in the scene. I believe that distribution of color in a scene can add to the appearance of contrast or lack of contrast in a particular image, much like the yellow leaves of Autumn can make the sky appear more blue.

A lot of photographers I know would do very well to work with a film crew for a couple of shoots to get an idea of how light works.

As far as a gel is concerned, I don't know what I am using half the time, I just eye-ball it and it looks fine. I have a very slight warming gel on all of my strobes most of the time for people work. It's amazing what a slight tweak does to skin tones, it seems to lower the contrast in them because the gelled artificially introduced light source is competing less with the predominate color cast there for smoothing the appearance in the skin.

If negative film is like walking on grass, then digital is like walking in sand and Kodachrome is like walking on concrete.

With Negative film, you can feel there is some room for give or take, with digital, there is relatively almost no limit therefore, no easily defined look or limit.

But with Kodachrome, there is a solid as rock limit in every direction and you come upon it fast. Some people can not tolerate this and they give the film the middle finger.

But some people have and do thrive on these kind of limits. For it is the very nature of the limits of the film that allow the mindful image maker to fully articulate his creative ability.

PKM-25 said:

A practical is a term used in the motion picture industry to describe artificial light that gives off a natural or practical look on the subject.

Click to expand...

I always thought a practical was the term used for a light source that is in the shot. No? For instance, a lamp on the able or a chandelier etc etc.

When I wanted to teach myself how to meter only with my brain, I used Kodachrome 64. It is very unforgiving with improper exposure, id est very small latitude. It taught me well. If you want to trust your meter, make sure that it is properly calibrated. Improperly exposed Kodachrome is horrid looking, but when exposed just right, it really speaks to me.

If I wanted to do indoor people snapshots, I would use Astia 100F...I am actually shocked as to how I can get away with some of the mixed and oddly balanced indoor lighting that I have subjected this film to. I have shot Astia under all sorts of odd lighting without color correction filters and had normal looking slides.

Kodachrome goes cold grey even on a slightly overcast day. As such, a warming filter with you're electronic flash would help a lot. Plus hard and typically overexposed flash light is ugly whatever you do to it. Bouncing it is key.

Just to add, I got my K-64 roll back, and on a couple of shots I took pics of (caucasian) people with the flash gelled with a 1/4 CTO. I'm very happy with the skin tones. (Unfortunately my @#$@#$ focus was just a bit off which ruined the shot, but that's not Kodachrome's fault )