Kodachrome Usage

Q.G. said:

...Kodak discontinued the wrong Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

Well, no. The 200ISO was mostly used by those who would benefit from the speed. The 25 and 64 were more popular, right? Now there are those who say that the 25 variant was the good one. So, suppose you had to make a business decision and pick only one of the three, which one would that be?

The 25ISO? It's not very practical, it's not always easy to handhold a camera with a 25ISO film. Using a tripod is not everybody's cup of tea, nor can it always be used. The already low sales would be reduced to such an extent that would make them abandon Kodachrome altogether.

So, what are we left with? A compromise that will keep Kodachrome going hopefully for some more. Sure, it's pure speculation from my part, but I think I've got some valid points.

Well, there you have it. We are stuck with a compromise.
Reason, for me at least, to stop using Kodachrome.

And i don't believe that this compromise will keep Kodachrome going.
They need to bring back Kodachrome 25, or another, new Kodachrome 100 that is what Kodachrome 25 was, only faster.
Kodachrome 64, the one we're left with left, just isn't that good.
(They missed an opportunity when they produced Kodachrome 200 in 120 format. We wanted Kodachrome 25, not that even less good Kodachrome variety!)

I have long decided that i will not use a film that isn't that good, just because it says Kodachrome (even though it doesn't deliver 'Kodachrome') and takes a week or two to get processed.
What i do is not the measure of things, but i can't help think that i am not alone in this.

Kodachrome 64 is not really that slow for most things. I rarely use a tipod with it. When I go indoors I throw the flash on and its all good. I try to use it as much as I can. I adapt to it.

Q.G. said:

So Kodachrome 64 is superrealistic, and we have to learn to appreciate that it renders things the way they really are?
Or it is supersensitive, and we need to treat it with respect, entice it to make it show that it can deliver decent pictures after all?

I don't buy that. It just isn't as 'nice' as other films.
Kodak discontinued the wrong Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

I think that you are absolutely right in what you believe, because this is so darn subjective that it really boils down to a person's individual needs and who can argue with that.

All I can do is share my opinion based on experience and that experience spans decades but more importantly, a lot of it reflects the here and now with the film and I pretty much shoot it daily.

The one thing I did when I came up with this project about 5 years ago was to treat the film like it was all I had, to not even think about other color slide films. You would think Kodachrome is kind of a one trick pony and can not do everything right? Well, that may be true to a degree, but I am really surprised at what one *can* do with the film when that kind of focus is put on it.

For example, people say it is no good with flash. I find that to be not true at all, technique brings all the elements into alignment. I keep an ever so slight warming gel on my flash and it looks beautiful. Bruce Davidson's book "Subway" is shot entirely on Kodachrome with a lot of flash use and looks pretty darn good to me:

http://www.art-dept.com/artists/davidson/portfolio/subway/newportfolio.html

Others like David Alan Harvey and William Albert Allard all used flash with Kodachrome with great effect, masterful technique ensured a masterful result.

Another thing people say is that it is no good for low light work. Again, the film does fine if it is used with proper technique. Here is a shot at 2 AM in available light at 1.4, 1/10th of a second hand held, the film did fine because I gave it proper technique:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/3237355978/sizes/o/in/set-72157613088832861/

I am not trying to sell everyone on the idea of shooting everything or anything on Kodachrome, I am just trying to enlighten people to the idea that the rules, the preconceived notions, the rumors simply are not true.

It is not the film for everything, it is not the second coming and it is not for everyone. It is however, Kodachrome and it is just SO darn cool we are still able to use it after 75 years.

That can only be a positive thing, no pun intended...

Q.G. said:

Kodachrome 64, the one we're left with left, just isn't that good.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, this film remains the test piece of how well a photographer understands light and color.

I think KR that I shot a few weeks ago looks just as good as KR I shot 20 years ago. Could you please look at my images with it and tell me what I am doing wrong then? Because I think I am getting nice results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/tags/kodachrome/

PKM-25 said:

Our eyes are used to seeing life in the full spectrum so we are kind of, well, blind to just how easy it is to change the *actual* color in something. If a skier wearing a tan ski jacket had walked by the group outside, we would normally never notice that it might have reflected a cast in the objects around it, but in a Kodachrome image taken at that time, the difference would be readily apparent filling the subject with warmth.

I think this is why people get so frustrated with Kodachrome, not only does it have narrow exposure latitude, it has narrow color latitude as well.

In my opinion, when one gets in synch with these limits, the real fun begins with Kodachrome so technique and a keen eye for light plays a big role in getting a pleasing image.

Click to expand...

And this key process of getting in sync, a Zen-like experience, is, I believe, the same process that Adams called visualization. Knowing how the finished image will render differently than how we see a scene. People aren't giving themselves a valid chance sometimes. More than a short trial is usually needed to gain experience with a medium. Your 34 years and your images today are empirical evidence that validate this idea.

AFAIK, the discontinuination of K25 was necessitated by the nature of the film. It was impossible to get consistent results when coating in smaller runs. Redesigning it would cost money that the film would not provide, so it died.

I like Kodachrome a lot. I was turned away from it when I compared it to a velvia slide of the same shot a while ago. Then I got back my last roll of the stuff and seeing one of the colors in a shot of the family lit underneath a canopy of autumn leaves made me change my mind

PKM-25,

It's clear that you are trying to get this film to work (because it is Kodachrome?), whereas i prefer using a film that works, even without me trying.

And there are such films indeed.
Kodachrome 25 was one. And in my experience, Ektachrome 64 was one too. It did what Kodachrome 64 did not.

I do like Kodachrome (25, that is). But will i bother with the 64 variant, just because it is Kodachrome? Surely not!
It's not an unwordly entity that does things that elevate us and our photographs to an entirely new reality of pure bliss and beauty. It's just a film, that is not as good as other films.
So i chose not to bother. And i don't.

I surely will use Kodachrome again, as soon as they bring out Kodachrome 25 again (preferably in 120 format).
Until that time, i'm gladly using films that do what i expect them to do without having to resort to zen.
There is no mystical merit in making something that is not really suited for the job work, when something beter is available that works all by itself.

Q.G. said:

PKM-25,

It's clear that you are trying to get this film to work (because it is Kodachrome?), whereas i prefer using a film that works, even without me trying.

And there are such films indeed.
Kodachrome 25 was one. And in my experience, Ektachrome 64 was one too. It did what Kodachrome 64 did not.

I do like Kodachrome (25, that is). But will i bother with the 64 variant, just because it is Kodachrome? Surely not!
It's not an unwordly entity that does things that elevate us and our photographs to an entirely new reality of pure bliss and beauty. It's just a film, that is not as good as other films.
So i chose not to bother. And i don't.

I surely will use Kodachrome again, as soon as they bring out Kodachrome 25 again (preferably in 120 format).
Until that time, i'm gladly using films that do what i expect them to do without having to resort to zen.
There is no mystical merit in making something that is not really suited for the job work, when something beter is available that works all by itself.

Click to expand...

But this is subjective, yes?

I don't have to even try anymore to get the film to work, I know it really well and it just works, it looks great.

Do you deny that other people are getting nice results from it?

Q.G. said:

So Kodachrome 64 is superrealistic, and we have to learn to appreciate that it renders things the way they really are?
Or it is supersensitive, and we need to treat it with respect, entice it to make it show that it can deliver decent pictures after all?

I don't buy that. It just isn't as 'nice' as other films.
Kodak discontinued the wrong Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

Kodachrome 64 is not supra-realistic in its rendering. In fact, it does not even render things "the way they really are". Nothing does. No one should make such a claim, and I don't think anyone has made such a claim. Realism is just too much to ask of any film, or any visual system for that matter...no matter how finely-tuned a rendering system is, there are always going to be trade-offs. There is no perfect film. There are only films. And we get to pick which ones we want to use, which ones we want to put the effort into learning. Good luck, and hopefully you will make great images with whatever you choose to use, whether that is Kodachrome, Velvia, Provia, Superia, Ektachrome, Tri-X, or more than one of the current films...and digital.

Having said this, the bottom line is Kodachrome 64 is the only Kodachrome left. It is not the end-all, be-all of color film. It's not always a spiritual experience. It's not the one film with perfect rendering that all others should be compared to. But it's a damn good approximation in many respects. And for those practitioners who want to use a subtractive color film for its unique color rendering, its edge sharpness, its way of rendering light, or any of the multitude of unique attributes, K-64 is the only choice on the market today. And it's darn consistent. And the slides last a long time. And so-on. It's that simple.

PKM-25 said:

Do you deny that other people are getting nice results from it?

Click to expand...

Why, of course not.

It's a comment on what was said about Kodachrome 64, and people not liking it being perhaps because they do not know it or how to use it properly.

B&Wpositive said:

Having said this, the bottom line is Kodachrome 64 is the only Kodachrome left. It is not the end-all, be-all of color film. It's not always a spiritual experience. It's not the one film with perfect rendering that all others should be compared to. But it's a damn good approximation in many respects. And for those practitioners who want to use a subtractive color film for its unique color rendering, its edge sharpness, its way of rendering light, or any of the multitude of unique attributes, K-64 is the only choice on the market today. And it's darn consistent. And the slides last a long time. And so-on. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Yes.
It "is the only choice on the market today", etcetera, as long as you limit yourself to Kodachrome. We do not have to.
It's that simple too.


Listen, i'm not against Kodachrome. Loved the stuff. Just not the one that is left.
It may be the only Kodachrome left. And that makes it special, in that it is the only Kodachrome left.
But that (being 'a' Kodachrome) doesn't comprise being as good as the other Kodachrome, the one that no longer is here.

I am all for attempts to keep history alive, as it were.
But also am of the opinion that it is too late, since the bit of history still alive and the bit that should have been kept alive are not the same.*
And that's not because i would not know what i am missing. Quite the contrary!
It's that simple.



*Ask PKM-25 why his alias is what it is, and not PKR-64.

And, PKM-25, apropos your tag line: we did use Kodachrome 25 and still lost it.

I actually have a roll of 64 in the fridge. Bought it in the UK a while back when I got back into photography and asked for a roll of 25 just to be told it was gone for good. So I bought a roll of 64 just incase. The rolls of Kodachrome I had bought before came with a mailer bag but this one didn't. Didn't cost less from what I remember. So I don't really know what to do with it. The kodak site says to post it to Switzerland as always, so do I need to stick a cheque in with it or send it off as is? Didn't really want to start up another thread just to ask that

It's processing paid, as before.
So just sent it to Lausanne, and wait for it to come back.

Thanks So I just slip in a piece of paper with my return address and it's all good.
I might start using it more as it seems E6 is becoming either really expensive, slow or both to deal with.

Q.G. said:

I am all for attempts to keep history alive, as it were.
But also am of the opinion that it is too late, since the bit of history still alive and the bit that should have been kept alive are not the same.*

Click to expand...

Understood. You're right. It IS too late as far as Kodachrome 25 is concerned. But it's NOT too late as far as Kodachrome 64 is concerned! Of course, PKM-25 will even argue with me about it being too late for KM-25!

Q.G. said:

*Ask PKM-25 why his alias is what it is, and not PKR-64.

Click to expand...

EXCELLENT point! But some of us live dual lives, or different aliases in different places. (In fact, I don't think PKM-25 has figured out who I am yet.) Now, Hypothetically speaking: What if his name actually were "PKR-64" (or something roughly equivalent) on another forum? Sometimes, the truth is a very delicate balance between hope and empirical evidence, indeed!

But I shouldn't, and won't, speak for PKM-25, a legendary photographic practitioner in his own right!

Please do visit his site as linked in his signature, if you haven't. You might find it is much to your liking.

www.kodachromeproject.com

My work here is now done.

Over and out!

B&Wpositive said:

For those who are new to KR-64 say the color of KR-64 and PKR-64 is too bland or doesn't match KM-25: you probably haven't given yourself enough of a chance to learn the film properly. Kodachrome 64 doesn't like cloudy, high color-temp, low-contrast days. It doesn't like the middle of a hazy, high-ozone, 85-F summer day where there is not a cloud in the sky. It DOES like the magic hours, it likes side-lighting, rim lighting, gelled fill flash, etc. As some of us relatively new Kodachrome shooters have been learning, it's possible to learn the film. I found that concentrating on mostly one type of film helps me to learn it a lot faster.

It really is a great film when used right under the right conditions. If I can learn it, you can learn it. The real trick with any medium you're new to is to experiment, experiment, experiment! It's NOT Kodachrome 25...but it's very capable in it's own way, and the look of the two seem to be very similar. (And you get extra ISO speed for handholding.)

Good luck!

Click to expand...

I think that all of this can be summed up pretty simply by saying that K64 WILL produce vivid colors if asked to do so. But unlike, say, Velvia, it will NOT 'jazz up' the colors in a dull scene.

To answer the original question I use Kodachrome for these reasons:

1) For someone who does not process his own film it is just about the cheapest option for processing and mounting.
2) It is an excellent "all-rounder" - you can use it to get good results for anything - people, landscapes, snapshots etc.
3) I like the way it looks.

A_T said:

To answer the original question I use Kodachrome for these reasons:

1) For someone who does not process his own film it is just about the cheapest option for processing and mounting.
2) It is an excellent "all-rounder" - you can use it to get good results for anything - people, landscapes, snapshots etc.
3) I like the way it looks.

Click to expand...

Good points, especially on number 3. After all, liking the way a film looks is THE BEST (and perhaps, the only) reason to shoot it.