Again.
This is about marketing. The people who are paying $200 for a Olympus MJUII don't care about the technicalities of the film. To quote my bubblegum snapping teenage cousin from 1991 'Is that fuji? It's like ick.'
Kodak can put anything out with Kodachrome on the can and it'll sell. They can call it iKodachrome 2.0G mk.8 9mm and people would love it.
And the original ASA 10 Kodachrome was finer grain and beautiful compared to the "lightning fast" ASA 25 Kodachrome II that replaced it. It was like velvet, and you could open the aperture of your Summicron to f2 in the shade.The Kodachrome 25 had much finer grain, was sharper -probably the sharpest film ever- and had better colours than the 64. Simply 25 blows 64 out of the water.
I disagree, i love Velvia 50 and while it clearly has very strong saturation i wouldn't call it cartoonish.True, Velvia 50 was introduced in 1990 and quickly became a "must try" film, giving K25 some harsh competition. But that being said, the present edition of Velvia 50 is too cartoonish in respect of colour reproduction.
True, almost anything labeled as Kodachrome will automatically spark headlines. But based on the information available, and the latest interview everything points toward re-introduction of Kodachrome 25 as E-6. The new-new product however can only be a 400 slide film.
True, almost anything labeled as Kodachrome will automatically spark headlines. But based on the information available, and the latest interview everything points toward re-introduction of Kodachrome 25 as E-6. The new-new product however can only be a 400 slide film.
Maybe i Film? In a box shaped like an apple with a bite out of it?Today if most of the people in the US were asked, they would not know what Kodachrome was, nor would they know what Kodak means. When people ask me who I worked for in New York and I say Kodak, they say things like "What is Kodak?" or "What does Kodak make?" Just because you love Kodachrome, does not mean that the world ever thinks of Kodachrome. The world moved on and Kodak and Kodachrome have been largely forgotten. Neither one carries any recognition nor market value. Today, most people have largely forgotten that cameras take photographs; when photographs are mentioned, they think iPhones and Androids.
Am I the only person who's never shot Kodachrome? Maybe if I was into colour when I started out, I would have tried it. I've only shot Velvia, Provia, and Reala, and those were quite lovely, especially Reala. If Kodak made a film that mimicked it, I might try it but I wouldn't know what I was looking at...
Am I the only person who's never shot Kodachrome? Maybe if I was into colour when I started out, I would have tried it. I've only shot Velvia, Provia, and Reala, and those were quite lovely, especially Reala. If Kodak made a film that mimicked it, I might try it but I wouldn't know what I was looking at...
I'm not sure how well it translates to jpegs on the internet but Kodachrome slides have a distinctive look in person. https://tomkershaw.com/gallery/kodachrome/
I shot both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. You did not miss anything. Ektachrome and Velvia were better.
I shot Kodachrome. When Provia F came out I left Kodachrome behind. I shot more black and white and Color negative film all Kodak.Am I the only person who's never shot Kodachrome? Maybe if I was into colour when I started out, I would have tried it. I've only shot Velvia, Provia, and Reala, and those were quite lovely, especially Reala. If Kodak made a film that mimicked it, I might try it but I wouldn't know what I was looking at...
What's the big hoopla then? Nostalgia?
The Kodachrome 25 had much finer grain, was sharper -probably the sharpest film ever- and had better colours than the 64. Simply 25 blows 64 out of the water.
Today if most of the people in the US were asked, they would not know what Kodachrome was, nor would they know what Kodak means. When people ask me who I worked for in New York and I say Kodak, they say things like "What is Kodak?" or "What does Kodak make?" Just because you love Kodachrome, does not mean that the world ever thinks of Kodachrome. The world moved on and Kodak and Kodachrome have been largely forgotten. Neither one carries any recognition nor market value. Today, most people have largely forgotten that cameras take photographs; when photographs are mentioned, they think iPhones and Androids.
Kodachrome was more resistant to fading and shifting, had a unique pallet. I would love to shoot k14, but I doubt they could bring it back economically, and how much would I shoot as more than a novelty? E100 fills that gap. If they created a e6 film with the same pallet, then I may give it a shot. But Velvia is still the winner for slide
The advantage of film is that it does NOT look digital. This is partly why I love Kodak Gold so much. There is currently lomo film in that Niche, but it sells like hotcakes. It is a growing market. I would love to shoot some Gold in 120(or superia). This may cannibalize ektar and portra sales a little.
I could see something unique coming out of the vision e technology. A cinematic film would be interesting to most film photographers. Maybe something HDRIsh without being too gaudy.
As for B&W, Kodak should stick to their current lineup.
Everything from badly faded 1940s vintage Kodachrome to a few rolls that were developed in the last month of 2010, after which Dwayne's shut down the last remaining Kodachrome line.I've seen examples online, but hard to trust. I would like to see in person... I'll bet @MattKing has some!
Everything from badly faded 1940s vintage Kodachrome to a few rolls that were developed in the last month of 2010, after which Dwayne's shut down the last remaining Kodachrome line.
Plus a whole bunch of double 8 and Super 8 movie film.
Strictly speaking, the majority of what I have was actually shot by my Dad.
Including this one, on 828, shot in 1961 on Kodachrome II - I'm the one in the brown jacket:
View attachment 263076
That colour is a decent facsimile of nearly 60 year old Kodachrome.
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?