Meh. Choosing to overlook the non-sequitur that is "I took some photos I like so it's the bestest bestest film ever," I'm going to wear my poor craftsmanship badge with pride.So to the folks on here who put the film down in several threads....and you know who you are: Brush up on your skills man, because if you think there is a better film, you might just be high as a kite.
This film behind a good lens with great craftsmanship is simply uncontested.
I will still maintain that the main reason Kodachrome fell from grace is that, for a consumer's perspective, you didn't get "picture in hand" like you did with negative film. And today, all the consumer cares about - still - is that physically manifest picture. Ergo, the difference between scans on a CD of the negatives with digitally printed pictures and scans on a CD of the slides with digitally printed pictures is that the negatives are in a little envelope they don't open and the slides are in a little box they don't open.
If monkeys can be trained to fly a rocket, Grandma can be trained to write "K-14 and scan" on the envelope.
This doesn't address Ian's point that clients won't wait two weeks to get results, but honestly the pros in almost any field are not the driving factor. After all, GM, BMW, and Toyota may have a few cars for Le Mans and NASCAR, but what Grandma wants determines that market, too.
In fact, the types of markets where the pros drive the choices are astronomically expensive. Witness medical operating room equipment. Not much home use for that stuff, and a good scalpel is more expensive than a whole set of regular kitchen knives.
If you want it to show up on the shelf at Walmart, get Grandma interested in buying it. So, from this twisted perspective, the reason Kodachrome is dying is because the digital scanner revolution happened to *LATE* to make it the market leader.
MB
... because crappy, low quality consumer films have gone with them.
Nah, while some of the Chinese film is pretty good, you can still buy crappy Chinese film.
MB
Personally I have not seen the crappy Chinese film, but then I tend to stick with Fuji for colour and Ilford for black and white.
IIf monkeys can be trained to fly a rocket, Grandma can be trained to write "K-14 and scan" on the envelope.
You may well be right, but various sources say environmental reasons. No-one from Koadk will ever comment.
Ian
I guess all this talk about "Grandma" and other mainstream users of Kodachrome has me a bit confused in nearly 2009. There should be no question that Kodachrome will see it's last days soon. So personally, I don't see how it is possible to make it a mainstream resurgence, it is simply not a realistic proposition.
There are far better and easier films for the rank amateur to use if they choose to go the film route in the first place. I just find all this debate and speculation a bit out of place when the writing is on the wall.
If you like the film, use it. If you don't, why come here and put it down? Why complain about lack of global distribution and support when we are incredibly lucky to using it in any country at this point in history?
And I keep hearing this K25 versus K64 over and over again. I have a good supply of both. Yes, K25 is better, tighter and smoother grain, but the color is only slightly different, and this is with premium K25 stock.
So I don't think the pining for K25 is as well placed as some may think, K64 really is that good, honestly, it is sharp, great color and only a bit more grain than 25. This is not just what I found years ago, it is what I am finding right this moment in looking at hundreds of KR and KM slides right now, today.
I guess this site is a lot less about shooting and much more about technical talk. When I get a chance, I am going to scan my best 40 images, but as some are panoramic, it will take the better part of a day. Once I do that, I am going to get the gallery up on the "other" site and provide a link.
I am not trying to save Kodachrome. I am not trying to say everything that is not Kodachrome is a lesser film. I am just trying to get people to shoot it while it is still around if they want to and share my experience with it *today*.
These discussions will persist, so there is that. But the film is still here, today and it still looks incredible, to me at least.
I guess all this talk about "Grandma" and other mainstream users of Kodachrome has me a bit confused in nearly 2009. There should be no question that Kodachrome will see it's last days soon. So personally, I don't see how it is possible to make it a mainstream resurgence, it is simply not a realistic proposition.
Forget Grandma, she's using that*fancy auto everything Chinese made digital, she takes the card out and drops it at the drug store where they make prints...
There was nothing environmentally "odd" about K25 that was different than any of the other B&W films produced at the time or currently. It was and is, the most critical film to manufacture that Kodak ever produced and was very temperamental during all phases of making. As size scaled down, it became more and more "cranky". From an environmental (double speak) position, piling up waste was an "environmental" problem. Kodak certainly had a lot of K25 waste. The other film that was hard to coat from the very start was Ektar 25. I can remember the startup pains of that one, as I was working on and off at the end of my stint on Gold 400 and met with some of the guys on the project. These sharp films required very precise application of many many layers that were very thin. Change conditions in coating or chemical balance and product defects go up!
If the process were the toxic item then all of the films would have been under indictment, but that is not so. The processing is no more toxic than any other color film except for the use of 3 color developer solutions. They are pretty much like inkjet toner when exhausted.
I hope that this answers both Ian and PKM.
PE
There's a wide held belief with people I've asked that k14 is an especially "toxic" process. Is the belief that color film processing "causes cancer" left over from the formaldehyde days or what? I know some of the old bleaches were bad, but then again they weren't all that bad.
Those neutralizer tablets go back to the very start of commercial dye bleach processing.
The catalyst originally used was suspected of causing cancer. IDK about the current one.
And salt water is very toxic. If you drink it, it can kill.
PE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?