Kodachrome

[Sal Santamaura]

I was just thinking that Kodak could tweak Ektachrome to have the contrast and saturation of Kodachrome and call it Kodakchrome.

You know you would buy it.

Nah. If Kodak released a version of PKM-25 in 120 on ESTAR base that had the sharpness and dark storage stability of Kodachrome, with the contrast and saturation of ASTIA 100F, then I would buy it. Lots of it.

 

[Cholentpot]

Nah. If Kodak released a version of PKM-25 in 120 on ESTAR base that had the sharpness and dark storage stability of Kodachrome, with the contrast and saturation of ASTIA 100F, then I would buy it. Lots of it.

The current crew driving the film growth doesn't really care about these things. They want cool 'new' or 'retro' emulsions that are fun and have an interesting ring to them. #kodachrome #panatomicx #retrokodak. Film is about fun.

 

[flavio81]

No, it didn't keep well. Back when Kodak processing was available I shot up some outdated K25 and it loses density and can't deliver a black and shifts to magenta

I wonder how was that K25 kept. If it loses density that could be compensated by increased exposure and/or increased development. About the shift, it will have to be evaluated carefully -- Kodachrome films in general, even when fresh and exposed correctly, had non-neutral grays on certain zones like shadows.

 

[flavio81]

When Kodachrome processing finished in 2010 (2021), I used up many Kodachrome films, outdated and otherwise, the oldest being a K25 dated 1981 (29 years o/d) and all proved still fresh with no visible deterioration.

Yes, that was my understanding too.

 

[flavio81]

Nah. If Kodak released a version of PKM-25 in 120 on ESTAR base that had the sharpness and dark storage stability of Kodachrome, with the contrast and saturation of ASTIA 100F, then I would buy it. Lots of it.

I'd be happy just with Astia 100F.

Dark storage stability of E6 materials is very good now.

 

[George Mann]

I think Kodak will do that at some point. It's not every day a company has an awesome song associated with a product line.

You know, it's the lyrics in this Dillon song that only hint about what made this film so special. I don't know of anyone who has really clarified it, so I am going to put it in words that hopefully enough of you can understand.

Kodachrome had a special property to its rendering that captured the essence, and even the mood of the subject or scene.

The current batch of Ektachrome just hints at this property. So hopefully, it can be used to recreate that special something that we lost with discontinuation of kodachrome.

 

[Cholentpot]

You know, it's the lyrics in this Dillon song that only hint about what made this film so special. I don't know of anyone who has really clarified it, so I am going to put it in words that hopefully enough of you can understand.

Kodachrome had a special property to its rendering that captured the essence, and even the mood of the subject or scene.

The current batch of Ektachrome just hints at this property. So hopefully, it can be used to recreate that special something that we lost with discontinuation of kodachrome.

It captured those bright colors and made everything seem like a sunny day, oh yeah.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, I knew that. My post reflects what I really care about. Unlike the "current crew," I recognize that the only reason to use film is for its life expectancy. Otherwise, digital wipes the floor with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and anything else "the current crew" really cares about.

Word processor beats fountain pen but people still use.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Word processor beats fountain pen but people still use.

On appropriate paper, fountain pen output will outlast the word processor file. Fountain pen is the film of today. You've made my point.

 

[Cholentpot]

On appropriate paper, fountain pen output will outlast the word processor file. Fountain pen is the film of today. You've made my point.

And you appreciated my parable. High five!

 

[George Mann]

Otherwise, digital wipes the floor with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and anything else "the current crew" really cares about.

Thankfully, most serious film shooters don't agree!

 

[Cholentpot]

Thankfully, most serious film shooters don't agree!

Not serious film shooters make the glut of the market these days.

 

[George Mann]

Not serious film shooters make the glut of the market these days.

Fools have always outnumbered the wise.

 

[Cholentpot]

Fools have always outnumbered the wise.

A fool and their money are soon parted.

This is the way of business. If we were frankly fully 100% Spock logical we'd have rolled up film and dumped it all a decade ago. It's illogical to shoot film. Humans are illogical, we like illogical stuff. We're all a little stupid and fun is stupid. 100% smart logical people don't have fun. We all need some idiocy.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Otherwise, digital wipes the floor with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and anything else "the current crew" really cares about.

Thankfully, most serious film shooters don't agree!

Most film shooters aren't "serious." Only those who recognize the life expectancy advantages of black and white, polyester-based negatives can be considered so.

Fools have always outnumbered the wise.

Yup. Evidence of this can be found in "high-end" audio shops.

...It's illogical to shoot film...

Tell that to the HABS / HAER / HAL program at the Library of Congress.

 

[Cholentpot]

Most film shooters aren't "serious." Only those who recognize the life expectancy advantages of black and white, polyester-based negatives can be considered so. Yup. Evidence of this can be found in "high-end" audio shops. Tell that to the HABS / HAER / HAL program at the Library of Congress.

There are niche situations where film fills a roll (NARF!), but for most applications it is illogical to shoot film.

 

[Don_ih]

for most applications it is illogical to shoot film

Enlarging?

 

[Cholentpot]

Enlarging?

I've got loads of megapixels and photoshop. Why waste time and money on darkroom prints?

 

[Don_ih]

Why waste time and money on darkroom prints?

If you believe that, there's nothing to say about it.

 

[Cholentpot]

If you believe that, there's nothing to say about it.

I was being rhetorical. Question was framed within the 100% logical thread of discussion.

It is illogical to make optical enlargements in the age of high definition digital cameras and strong complex digital post processing.

You can defend the art and I'll stand by with you. Defend the logical practicality and you're being delusional.

 

[Don_ih]

Defend the logical practicality

It's cheaper to make a 16x20 b&w print than it is to get one made. Is that practical?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Defend the logical practicality.

Because I can, because I want to, because I have the darkroom and because I enjoy making prints. I do not need mommy's permission.

 

[Cholentpot]

Because I can, because I want to, because I have the darkroom and because I enjoy making prints. I do not need mommy's permission.

That's not logical! Get your Spock ears on!

It's cheaper to make a 16x20 b&w print than it is to get one made. Is that practical?

Count in the equipment and learning curve, it's far cheaper to get a digital print.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's not logical! Get your Spock ears on!

How died and made you god?

 

[Cholentpot]

How died and made you god?

Sadly Spock is dead...but aside from that my original argument was about being 100% logical. I'm arguing from that standpoint. Roll back a dozen posts and see where this started.