New Kodachrome lab?

Photo Engineer said:

Kevin;
In any event, being first was not being best or least expensive. The original Kodak DSLR ran about $25,000 and was first used at the Olympic games in Atlanta. IBM set up an OS/2 server to handle the transmission of the digital images. But, Kodak died in the market. Too expensive and too slow to save pictures among other things.

They had two bodies. One was built on a Nikon frame and the other was built on a Canon frame.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing these when I worked for the Press Association (not as a photographer, I hasten to add before anyone imagines someone would actually pay me for my limited photographic skills, but I knew some of the 'togs) - even given some of the obvious inadequacies they were still pretty amazing.

Anyone who's actually worked in the news media knows that the arrival of digital revolutionised the pictures business; the idea of even going back to film would be madness, but the idea of choosing to use Kodachrome in that kind of environment would have you incarcerated in an institution for the permanently befuddled in less time than it would take you to load a roll in the camera.

Kevin, I thought your post was nice. It encapsulates the way I feel, being relatively new to photography and also being young enough to not experience really the heyday of films like Kodachrome. Even though when I was growing up everyone always shot film, I just never paid attention to it. I wish I had.

Photo Engineer said:

The original Kodak DSLR ran about $25,000 and was first used at the Olympic games in Atlanta.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that; how strange! They also set up Kodachrome processing just for the Olympic games in Atlanta 1996, right? That would have been awesome.

dmr said:

My guess that either Fuji Astia or Sensia would be closer to the color "look and feel" of Kodachrome than any of the current Ekta/Elitechrome films.

However, not exactly, and others may disagree.

Click to expand...

Yes I have not shot Astia but I didn't care for Sensia at all; I doubt I will be shooting that again. So cool and plain for my taste. I hope there will be some way to get the Kodachrome look from another film by the time Kodachrome dies (if it does). I guess it's just as likely that Kodachrome will be around as long as any other film, since it looks like Kodak may have leaned things out so they could keep just the best-selling variety around, K64. I don't know how much Astia differs from Sensia, but I didn't care for Sensia. I did see Sensia 200 and 400 at my local camera shop the other day which I guess I didn't realize existed. I've never tried high-speed slide film but I've been meaning to give Provia 400 a try. I like Provia better than Sensia but Provia is a little cool and blueish for my taste.

Soeren said:

I remember Kodachrome colors as quite saturated whereas Sensia and Astia are more subtle/neutral.

Click to expand...

I don't see Kodachrome's colors as 'saturated' so much as 'unique' or 'rich'. Compared to Velvian colors, Kodachrome is not saturated. Now, it is by no means 'neutral' as I would say Sensia is. I like the deep, rich reds and greens. If I want really bright, saturated reds and purples then I choose Velvia. But I was looking at a good shot that I got on Velvia last night on the projector, and I was thinking about how it just doesn't "do it for me". The colors were nice, the shot was good, but it just isn't Kodachrome. There's something about Kodachrome in the projector that I just love. I can sit and look at one for hours, but even though Velvia is nice, it doesn't please me the same way.

Photog Business

Revolutionized? Sure. Quality? Debatable. I have a degree in broadcasting so I do agree with the revolutionized statement. I have a nice digital set and it stays in the bag most of the time. I prefer using a 30+ year old Canon and film. To my 34 year old eyes slides look better. Digital looks ...well it looks too much like still video to me and essentially thats what it is. Has video ever made television any better? It deteriorates. While the digital cards don't do that they are subject to EMP and other magnetic forces. My worry is that in the future will my cards be so obsolete that no computer will read them? Then what? We all know how computers get out of date and how unfortunately hardware to run the older stuff increasingly becomes hard to find. For me film makes sense. This debate reminds me when everyone dumped their nice 8mm sound outfits for camcorders in the 80s. Our 8mm videos from the 1960s (before I was born) and in the 70s through the 80s when I was a kid are excellent to this day. Our videos with the camcorder? Trash! Barely viewable and they've been stored the way you are told to store them. VHS tape is crap. Do I use it? Sure I do. I use it to timeshift a program I want to watch later than it gets recorded over. Quality though it has so little. Speaking of camcorders. What really made no sense to me was when the miniDV format came out and some of those others where you had to use the camera as the playback deck as well as camcorder! That just wears those tiny heads down that much faster. I always thought it a bit dumb to connect a camera to the tv to watch a tape. Thats why for camcorders eventhough it is crap we stuck with full size VHS. Just pop it in the machine and go. I just wonder how "pop" in easy digital photos will be in the future. Yeah you can backup but CD's that you burn only last until the dyes begin to fade then its error city. Hard drives fail. Ultimately in my opinion digital is not a very good archival format. You take digital tape. Now on analog tape if there was a dropout or fading you still had some signal. On digital tape (DAT) theres no such thing, if it drops out theres no audio period just silence. Its way more prone to dropouts than analog cassettes. I know I have worked with both formats. I just lean towards analog as this forum is about. To me negatives and positives will hold up better in my lifetime so for me film it is!

-Kevin

PS - Plus that $1200 digital camera feels like a toy compared to my rugged Canon from 1976!

Last Kodachrome push by EK

Here is one of the last ads for Kodachrome, for the winter Olympics in about 1990. Note that it shares the ad with Ektachrome. This relationship altered at this time due to the change in sales. It was also at this time that Fuji had severe problems with its reversal films in E6 so Ektachrome sales went up and Fuji and Kodachrome went down.

Also, the Kodak digital camera was out there being used by the press to send "instant" pictures back to the main office.

PE

What's the point of a "neutral" film, anyway? Photography can't capture a scene exactly as it is, so why bother trying for accurate colors, instead of interesting ones? All I shoot is RVP50, Kodachrome, and B&W. I'm not one much for accuracy.

AutumnJazz said:

What's the point of a "neutral" film, anyway? Photography can't capture a scene exactly as it is, so why bother trying for accurate colors, instead of interesting ones? All I shoot is RVP50, Kodachrome, and B&W. I'm not one much for accuracy.

Click to expand...

Ever see a green leather jacket or a pink one worn by a guy on a motorcycle? The ability to form a white, gray and black that are truly neutral are core to the subject of color photography.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Ever see a green leather jacket or a pink one worn by a guy on a motorcycle? The ability to form a white, gray and black that are truly neutral are core to the subject of color photography.

PE

Click to expand...

Alright, you've got me.

Ah yes, the Kodak DCS systems. I remember seeing the Nikon body on that "rack-of-a-back" around March 1998. It had to be mounted on robust tripod due to its size, weight, and need to be nearby a serial receiver (e.g., a computer, which in every instance I saw a DCS setup, that computer was always a Power Mac, usually the "G2" generation, though not named as such). Medium to larger ad agencies with the need to offer in-house imaging for their clients' products (think of a weekly ad circular for your local major supermarket) went to DCS due to its exceptionally rapid (at the time) turnaround and, given high volume, lower costs for lower-res needs. I seem to remember the Nikon DCS was built on an F4 body, or else it was the F90.

I think kodachrome64 defines why those still using Kodachrome prefer it: the psychology of colour. While one aim for interpretive colour is to reproduce exactly what is present, the human mind records colour experiences subjectively based on any number of reasons. The value of looking to different colour film stocks for different purposes is why there's not only ardent loyalty for photographers interested in a particular style (e.g., landscape shooting with Velvia or weddings with Portra), but also what makes the creative latitude so inviting for photographers who come to learn the quirks of different film stocks — using particular ones for particular themes or situations. Why else would some photographers have gone through exceptional efforts to shoot Ektachrome EIR? Clearly their journey as a photographer wouldn't end when a film stock is ended. They'd merely turn to whatever else was available and experiment from there.

When Kodachrome disappears (as much as I'm wont to say "if"), I would only be appeased to find another stock exhibiting the virtually same colour/lighting/layering characteristics as Kodachrome. For reasons of process, novel chemistry, and structure, this is not likely to happen, nor have I found one. And while there might be filters out there in the computery world to mimic film stocks' colours, light rendering, and grain patterns, it falls short of working with the very medium lost to such mimickry. Rather, I'll continue to explore film stocks for certain qualities and use them for essays and themes I'm working on (like shooting with Fuji Fortia SP for aurora borealis shots -- if you'd like to try it before I do, go right ahead!).

OK. This has strayed from the topic of Kodachrome labs, so I'll end the digression.

Nasa and Ektachrome

Guys I was doing a search and came across this NASA film informaton page.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/FilmTypeDesc.htm

Apparently from that page NASA used Ektachrome but no Kodachrome is listed. Interesting. Speaking of photographing space, I can't wait to get my slides back where I set my camera up on a tripod with my 500mm and did a photo of the moon when it was really bright. It filled up a good portion of my viewfinder, not all but a good portion of the middle of the frame. I hope there was no shake as it had to be so slow. I forget what I used, I couldn't see well outside and could barely get things set in the viewfinder it was so dark! It'll be interesting to see. Anyway that NASA list is interesting to look at. Wasn't Ektachrome X ...64 speed?

-Kevin

nasa again

upon looking at that list I find they also have used Elite Chrome. Interesting!

-Kevin

They also have used Eastman color negative film! Credits appear under the picture.

PE

The following is a point PE or others may be able to comment on:

I believe the colour balance of Kodachrome has changed, that is the newly precessed film of the day, not change due to processed film aging over the years. Perhaps if one should want to match the colours of Kodachrome one would have to specify which one - just a conjecture.

Cheers,
Clarence

Clarence;

I have no idea what the current product is like. I know what the daylight aim was and what the variance in speeds were, but that was a while back. I cannot see them changing the aim. It may be the process for all we could tell though. They may do the same thing over and over and still have a slight offset.

PE

Some Nice Kodachromes

I found this website:

Dead Link Removed

This guy has some nice Kodachromes from Vietnam in 1970. If you hold your mouse over the first picture and let the little pop up come up it says Canonet QL17. I figure that is the camera he used to make those photos. Some of them seem a little out of focus, maybe a couple but most are razor sharp. I've heard so many people preach about how good those Canonets are at getting razor sharp photos. What do you guys have to say concerning Canonets and Kodachrome? Great match?? What do you think?

-Kevin

New Question

I'd like to hear from those who've used Walmart to get Kodachrome developed. As said earlier I know they re-route them to Dwaynes. What i'd like to know is this. When they are returned, are they returned in the "Processed by Kodak" mounts? The ones that say "Kodachrome" at the top? I'm curious since they are a certified kodak lab. I know when I get things back they are always generic mounts that say "Color Transparency" across the top.

-Kevin

I may be mistaken, but I think the "Kodachrome" mounts were used when the film was processed at the actual Kodak K-14 line, when those were still around. Since Dwayne's is an independent lab that is certified to process Kodachrome, I think we are stuck with the generic "Color Transparency" mounts. I would sure love to have the real Kodachrome mounts, but I wasn't shooting it back when Kodak was still processing it. I don't think Dwayne's is going to mount them any different no matter where the rolls come from.

Nick

My mounts say Kodak.

And they came from Dwayne's? When?

My Kodachromes all come back in Kodak mounts (i.e. they have the Kodak logo in red writ-large across the top of the mount, but not Kodachrome.) Obviously these are all processed by Dwayne's 'cos they ain't getting processed anywhere else ;-). These are through the Kodak mailers though.

(Edit: Oh, to answer the question directly - most recent would be about 2 weeks ago.)

It must have to do with the mailers. In any case, I don't think anyone is getting the Kodachrome mounts.

Attatched is a scan af both sides of a KR64 slide I got back today. I sent in the film in a Kodak PK24 mailer to Kodak's PO Box in Parsons.

I just got my first Wal-Mart Kodachrome back and I am pleased. It seems to be exactly like sending it to Dwayne's except that there is no sticker on the black plastic box the slides are returned in, and of course it's a whole lot cheaper! I wrote "Kodachrome Slide Film Process K-14" in the special instructions box and "with Picture CD". They put a note in the package that they couldn't honor my request for CD. Figured I'd try. It must have to do with the agreement between Wal-Mart and Dwayne's/Kodak that will only allow them to process the rolls and that's it. I really don't know.

Dwayne's picture CD is absolute shit, anyway.