On the topic of Kodachrome

[j4425]

Their scan CDs suck terribly though, so don't even bother. And they take an extra 3 days to do scans if you select that option, so I can do it myself in much less time.

Are the scans really that bad.. I plan on sending them a couple rolls shortly and I don't have a scanner readily available..

 

[accozzaglia]

Just take them to your local pharmacy/chemist photo lab. Find out if they have a Noritsu machine that can scan your Kodachrome rolls. One caveat: you can only get this done if you ask Dwayne's not to cut your roll. The upside is better access to consistent scanning results if you use the same place you trust, and you can cut your own if you've had bad experiences with them in the past. The downside is you'll have to get your own slide sleeves if you plan to use them that way.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Find a local pro lab or mail them out to one.

I've seen the way 1-hour labs handel photos...I would never, ever, ever use them for anything.

 

[accozzaglia]

I guess I'm fortunate: my local pharmacy photo lab manager has been working at this for about a dozen years and actually enjoys it when I bring in rolls for scanning. And it's decently priced: $3 for the first roll in a batch, and $1 for each subsequent roll (until the CD-R media is full). He also sometimes brings in some of his darkroom work of fibre b/w prints to show, which clearly supports that he loves what he does. Were it not for that, I'd be taking my rolls for scanning to the pro place where I have my E-6 processed and spend twice to thrice what I would around the corner. As a uni student, I look for the best value for the quality whenever I can!

 

[railwayman3]

Also, my only experience with customer service has been Dwayne's calling to question a "special" request I made:

I sent in the above mentioned nine rolls with a note saying that two rolls were images of the night sky and to please not cut if the frames are not visible. Someone called me, I'm still not sure why, sounding terribly irritated saying repeatedly that this would "slow production," and that they'd have to pull my film from "production" and have "someone" inspect it. The phrase "slow production" was used repeatedly. Honestly, the correct response from any lab worth it's salt is: of course, we would never cut the film if we can't see where the images begin and end.

."

That's poor service.

Astro-photos can't be that unusual for Dwaynes....I've done them myself, and it can be difficult to see the framing on 35mm, both on slides and negs.

I could (just about) understand their issue in pulling out an individual film from a continuous process, but surely their correct response should have been to simply suggest returning the whole film uncut to avoid any problems.

And, in my own business experience, "slowing production" would be an inexcusable excuse to make to a customer....production is important, of course, but customer satisfaction is the priority in service industries. No customers, no production, no profit! And I don't have the impression that Dwaynes are "snowed-under" with K-14 work.

There is no excuse for mis-cutting or mis-mounting slides of everyday subjects. I've seen modern slide-mounting machines operating in a pro-lab, and any semi-skilled operator could work them successfully...always assuming that they are interested and/or not asleep! The machines even pick up uneven film spacing, e.g. a camera problem or re-loaded film.

I'll be interested to know the response you get from Dwaynes and Kodak.

 

[MattKing]

From the mists of time ...

I have a clear memory of a portion of a "family" tour of the Kodak processing laboratory in Vancouver my father worked at between 1961 and 1984. It involved a demonstration of the totally manual slide mounting equipment used there.

You have to realize that this was in the heyday of Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides and movies (the Vancouver lab didn't do colour print). They had large, high capacity processing machinery, and during much of the year they were staffed with either two or three shifts (24 hour production!).

The biggest challenge for the slide mounting operators was:

1) boredom;
2) people who would shoot part of a roll, rewind it, reload it, then shoot the rest;
3) boredom;
4) cameras that spaced unevenly or, even worse, erratically, or even worse, erratically, with overlapping frames; and
5) mind-numbing boredom!

They had all sorts of techniques to deal with the boredom - short shifts, frequent breaks, mental tricks to refocus, but every once in a long while they would miss a change in film spacing.

They probably hated astro-photographers too .

Matt

P.S. my father was in charge of the customer service department, and it was his department that dealt with the myriad of dealers in Western Canada who took in film from customers, sent it to Kodak for processing, and then received it back for customer pickup. So it was he and his staff who got to deal with anyone whose complaints about mounting traveled all the way to Kodak. I expect he too wasn't all that fond of astro-photographers.

 

[PKM-25]

Good narrative of slide mounting. I would never send a roll of just astro shots off to a lab, ever. I would even go as far as to shoot a bright image like a flash lit shot every 10 frames or so to guide the mounter.

Lets put things into perspective a bit folks:

Move forward in time say, 10-15 years. There is no more Kodachrome even. I bet so many people would chime in and as they wax poetic about Kodachrome, they would say how they would do anything to be able to shoot it....even put up with a scratch, mis-mounted frame or finger print on a roll now and then.

Think about it guys, you here bitching about the last lab in the universe that can still soup one the greatest films ever made, what a waste.

I just can't believe the complaining. Are you not passionate, driven and committed? I sure as hell am and I fully support Dwayne's and their tireless effort to allow us to be able to shoot this.

Wake UP folks, this is your last chance to shoot something incredible with this film!

Shot in July in Pikes Street Market, Leica M6, 35mm 1.4 aspheric wide open. Scanned with Nikon 9000 ED, Silverfast AI 6.6.....

 

[Thanasis]

Good narrative of slide mounting. I would never send a roll of just astro shots off to a lab, ever. I would even go as far as to shoot a bright image like a flash lit shot every 10 frames or so to guide the mounter.

Lets put things into perspective a bit folks:

Move forward in time say, 10-15 years. There is no more Kodachrome even. I bet so many people would chime in and as they wax poetic about Kodachrome, they would say how they would do anything to be able to shoot it....even put up with a scratch, mis-mounted frame or finger print on a roll now and then.

Think about it guys, you here bitching about the last lab in the universe that can still soup one the greatest films ever made, what a waste.

I just can't believe the complaining. Are you not passionate, driven and committed? I sure as hell am and I fully support Dwayne's and their tireless effort to allow us to be able to shoot this.

Wake UP folks, this is your last chance to shoot something incredible with this film!

Shot in July in Pikes Street Market, Leica M6, 35mm 1.4 aspheric wide open. Scanned with Nikon 9000 ED, Silverfast AI 6.6.....

Great photo! And while I admire your energy and enthusiasm in supporting Dwayne's and promoting this fantastic film, you will just have to accept that others may not be so enthusiastic about spending their hard-earned money on perceived substandard processing or customer service of a film that Kodak will jettison the minute it makes economic sense to do so.

 

[PKM-25]

I understand where you are coming from too, but trust me on this: People will regret the pissing and moaning when Kodachrome is gone.

 

[railwayman3]

PKM-25 - I know what you're saying....I'm sure, when the sad day comes, I'll be the first to mourne K64's passing, and will remember the great days over my pipe and slippers. Perhaps through slightly rose-colored glasses, that being human nature.

I support Dwaynes 100%, but I dont want to see our current attempts to make the most of Kodachrome tempered by worries of unnecessary processing
issues. My own experience of Dwaynes is still OK, but there are obviously real concerns and problems experienced by other people.

And, as Thanisis says, most of us have to watch the $$ these days, and we need to be able to entrust our photos, which have cost us money and time to take, to a reliable service, however much we may want to use Kodachrome.

As regards boredom as an excuse for poor mounting, etc. In my own profession (unconnected with photography) some work can be achingly boring, but I can just imagine the reaction if I tried to explain "I was bored" as an excuse for a cock-up!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I understand where you are coming from too, but trust me on this: People will regret the pissing and moaning when Kodachrome is gone.

I'm, for one, agree with you on this one. I hate to see Kodachrome go, but it is sign of the times.

Jeff

 

[Steve Roberts]

Are you not passionate, driven and committed? .

Of course we are! And that's exactly why we don't want to see Kodachrome's demise brought about by shoddy processing.

I spend too much money and put far too much effort into my work to have to send it off wondering whether it will be returned dusty, scratched, spotty, badly cut or not mounted squarely, all of which have happened to me courtesy of Dwayne's.

I, like the other poster, never had any cause for complaint in over thirty years of using HH or Lausanne..... and the wonderful accent of the Swiss ladies who answered the phone there was something else!

Steve

 

[PKM-25]

Oh, I have had all that stuff happen too and worse, but not often. I think if you care about the product while we still have it, you have to be creative in how you communicate problems to them.

They do care, they occasionally post on my forum on the Kodachrome Project site too. I am committed to this film while it is still around. I am getting better and better results from it and I know that I have to accept flaws now and then.

They are all we have got, and who knows how much longer that will be. So every time you have an issue arise, communicate it to them as they will be able to tally these problems up and work on fixing them.

I really don't know what else to say, they are the only choice now, we are all in this together...

 

[Photo Engineer]

You might want to look at Portra 160 VC and Portra 400 VC. They are pretty good for color, grain and sharpness. See the other thread on this.

A lot of work went into making these the premium films available.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

@PKM-25

I'm with you 100% really, I just guess that, simply by being Kodachrome users, we are perfectionists, and have never been let down by Kodak in-house processing. Their service, from whichever Kodak lab I have used over the years has set such a very high standard.
I'm looking forward to a trip to Venice in the New Year, and shall be shooting Kodachrome....it will interesting to compare with the results from Agfachrome RS50 and RS100 which I used on my first visit a few years ago.

^^^@ PhotoEngineer

Thanks for that heads-up on Portra, I'll certainly investigate it.
Oddly enough, I was thinking earlier today that the choice of Kodak colour neg on general sale in the UK (at least for amateur films) is now very basic
(200ASA Color Plus, and that's about it! ) I was forgetting the pro film range.
A quick glance at the example pics on the Kodak website is very encouraging, and I'm just off to have another look and download the technical info.

 

[Lee L]

@PKM-25
I'm with you 100% really, I just guess that, simply by being Kodachrome users, we are perfectionists, and have never been let down by Kodak in-house processing.

Actually, I quit using Kodachrome much when Kodak split off the Qualex labs back in the mid-80's and the slides started coming back dirty and scratched. I shot mostly nature then, in a very green place, and the differentiation in Velvia greens, plus local E6 labs that were cleaner than the Qualex line, caused me to switch. But I do love Kodachrome, and have about a brick each of the pro 25 and 64 emulsions frozen that I plan to start using before the processing goes away entirely.

Lee

 

[GeoffHill]

the choice of Kodak colour neg on general sale in the UK (at least for amateur films) is now very basic
(200ASA Color Plus, and that's about it! ) I was forgetting the pro film range.
A quick glance at the example pics on the Kodak website is very encouraging, and I'm just off to have another look and download the technical info.

Portra 160VC is fantastic, try some from 7day shop. It's a huge leap forward from color plus

 

[TheDreadPirateRobins]

I had some nice results from Portra 160VC, too. I used a 7 day shop that doesn't allow their chemicals to overheat and that used optical printing for the processing.

If I had taken it to a one hour place it would have been horrid, I am sure.

 

[MMfoto]

I had some nice results from Portra 160VC, too. I used a 7 day shop that doesn't allow their chemicals to overheat and that used optical printing for the processing.

If I had taken it to a one hour place it would have been horrid, I am sure.

You know, I have to say the small digital machine prints (4x6 or 5x7) I have made at Panda labs in Seattle are VASTLY better than any optical machine print I ever had in the past. I'm not a big fan of digital imaging, but this is one example where, IME, a skilled technician can often create superior results.

 

[railwayman3]

Actually, I quit using Kodachrome much when Kodak split off the Qualex labs back in the mid-80's and the slides started coming back dirty and scratched. I shot mostly nature then, in a very green place, and the differentiation in Velvia greens, plus local E6 labs that were cleaner than the Qualex line, caused me to switch. But I do love Kodachrome, and have about a brick each of the pro 25 and 64 emulsions frozen that I plan to start using before the processing goes away entirely.

Lee

Here in the UK, "amateur" Kodachrome (sold process-paid) was SFAIK never processed by anyone other than in-house, at Hemel Hempstead and subsequently at Lausanne. The QC was, in my (critical) experience, immaculate.
My late Father also had some slides from the E-4 service which Kodak offered through dealers in the 1960's-70's, which I still have in good condition.

And there was a Kodak Pro lab in London (Wimbledon?) for a time, which I assume was Kodak-owned and operated. I'm not sure if I ever sent any films there, but I do recall that they processed the last runs of 120 Kodachrome. (Which I "never got round" to trying out....there's a lesson there. )

Were Qualex independent of Kodak?

 

[Lee L]

Were Qualex independent of Kodak?

I don't know all the specifics, but Qualex was set up by Kodak as an independent photofinishing/processing company in the mid 1980's. My understanding is that after a while, Kodak had to sort out the quality control by taking a more active role in the company. Qualex is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Kodak.

For me Kodachrome went from 24 hour turnaround in 1979 to a full week turnaround in the mid 1980's, and when Qualex was formed I started getting dirty and mis-cut slides back on things I couldn't re-shoot. Then Fuji Velvia arrived, which was exellent for what I was shooting most at the time. I also had two local E6 lines then, both with great quality and 4 hours turnaround.

Kodachrome 25 was my primary transparency film for the first two decades I shot, and I still love it. I plan to finish off my remaining K25 and K64 at Dwaynes before their K-14 line stops.

Lee

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I don't know all the specifics, but Qualex was set up by Kodak as an independent photofinishing/processing company in the mid 1980's. My understanding is that after a while, Kodak had to sort out the quality control by taking a more active role in the company. Qualex is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Kodak.

For me Kodachrome went from 24 hour turnaround in 1979 to a full week turnaround in the mid 1980's, and when Qualex was formed I started getting dirty and mis-cut slides back on things I couldn't re-shoot. Then Fuji Velvia arrived, which was exellent for what I was shooting most at the time. I also had two local E6 lines then, both with great quality and 4 hours turnaround.

Kodachrome 25 was my primary transparency film for the first two decades I shot, and I still love it. I plan to finish off my remaining K25 and K64 at Dwaynes before their K-14 line stops.

Lee

Here in Australia, VisionGraphics in Sydney processes, I think, Kodachrome as a rare filmstock; it's turnaround (last time I used them years ago) was about 2 weeks. My earliest Cibas were printed from Kodachrome slides: cibas and slides are doing well 2 decades-plus later.

Kodachrome 200 was my favourite filmstock in my formative years as a 2-wheeled traveller (bicycle touring) from 1980 to 1995, around about which time I switched to Velvia (an affair that has endured). I have about 3,000 Kodachrome 200 slides sleeved (I never used K-25 or K-64) and all that I have peeked at have kept immaculately from the 1980s: most in the familiar old Kodak cardboard mounts, later the common plastic mounts and all processed by Kodak in their dainty little reinforced paper bags with postage paid (that era has long gone, sadly). I have always been smitten by the utter beauty and clarity of slides, and in K-200, the colour was agreeable to anything: sunsets, blue skies, green hills...
I never bothered about the visible grain. Contrast-wise, I can see it is/was a much more forgiving film than, for instance, today's heavy-hitting Velvia (I didn't know or care about contrast issues in those days: I just photographed the world I trundled through). Velvia came as rude shock to me after the first roll. I learnt quickly from my errors!!

None of the dealers I know of stock Kodachrome, and for a few, not even film! (they give the same tired out line that "film is for idiots!", bringing the predictable sharp retort from me, of "digital is for dummies!"). We could go on and on an on about digital, but this aint the thread for it! :rolleyes:

 

[TheDreadPirateRobins]

You know, I have to say the small digital machine prints (4x6 or 5x7) I have made at Panda labs in Seattle are VASTLY better than any optical machine print I ever had in the past. I'm not a big fan of digital imaging, but this is one example where, IME, a skilled technician can often create superior results.

It could be more the level of care, then, than the actual machine. The 7 day shop I use puts their pride on the line with each envelope processed. It could be that at your Panda lab that the technician is skilled and more interested in doing a good job than sending text messages to his/her friends, unlike some of the grocery store/drugstore labs around here.

 

[Pupfish]

Moreover, Kodachrome 64 has terrible reciprocity failure and color shifts on exposures greater than 1s while current E6 offerings do not. It has much less saturated reds (thus seemingly more accurate) than Velvia 50, what with its over-amped reds that have no subtlety. But that doesn't mean that it's especially good for skin tones. It's rather subject to IR/UV in the mid-day sun and reddens skin too much, especially a problem with fair-haird, fair-skinned caucasians, like the kid in the shot above (too reddish to my eyes!).

Having shot K64 nearly exclusively for a dozen years until Velvia appeared on the scene in 1990; I tried the whole banquet of E6 films that looked to be Kodachrome's successor. Didn't find any with the excellent shadow detail and shadow color (blacks, not browns) or the range and gamut of Kodachrome, so I went back to it for another few years. Loved that it was heat resistant here in 100˚F+ California, another reason was economy-- with mailers the gray market stuff was something like $7/roll of 36. Always asked for it rolled and not cut, noting that avoiding the slide mounting machines induced fewer "blue muthas" from cut end-piece gouges (why they threw the leaders back in the box in with the mounted slides, I cannot fathom). Printed better on Ilfochrome than Provia, Fuji 100 or Lumiere (which induced weird magenta crosses in the shadows). Used K64 up until processing got so ragged with Qualex that my K64 was returned to me looking more like washed-out K200. Probably haven't shot any for something like eight years now.

Astia 100F is a better film for color accuracy and dynamic range than any other E6 film of my 30 years experience. I soup my own in a JOBO CPP2 and get very consistently excellent color using one-shot E6 by splitting Kodak 5L kits.

But for really wonderful people portraits, I have to say Kodak makes color just about foolproof with their neg films (Nowadays, Portra though I liked Gold 100 just fine and the now-extinct Supra much better). So much easier to make a D/R print where skin tones look spot-on in RA4/ Kodak paper than in using reversal papers or from scans of transparencies!

Kodak developed Photo CD using gold platters for archival quality, likely because they saw the writing on the wall for the demise the not-so-environmentally friendly K64. If you don't go along with that plan, all is not lost. E6 films have gotten vastly better in longevity than the emulsions of the 70's and early 80's. My sleeved Fujichromes and Ektachromes from 1990 still look perfect, no different than K64 of that era. Oh, might also mention that the superior archival properties were always for dark storage-- Kodachrome fades rapidly when projected or exposed to sunlight, most noticable in highlight detail. E6 is better for projection.

 

[kodachrome64]

I don't get why they send back the leaders with the slides either. I guess just in case you want them for something. Dwayne's also sends back the part where they taped it to the next roll.

I know about the reciprocity failure of KR64, but I took some fireworks shots with it and was pleasantly shocked at how well it performed. Oddly enough, I don't have any reason to use E6 films because I have to send all of it off anyway. Even though I live very near Dallas, there aren't any E6 lines anywhere around; at least not more convenient than sending it off. I guess if I start doing E6 myself then that will be a major reason, but for now, it all pretty much takes the same amount of time and costs at least the same...maybe Kodachrome is even cheaper. Through Wal-Mart for $4.88 or even direct to Dwayne's for $9.00 it's not bad. I sent some Velvia off through my local Ritz and when it came back over a week later I was shocked at the price tag of $23.00!

If I liked everything about an E6 film just as much as I did Kodachrome, right now the only real advantage to shooting E6 for me would be if I processed it myself and the ability to shoot 6x7. When Kodachrome processing goes away, then I'll be forced to shoot E6. Until then I think I'm just going to enjoy Kodachrome...although I will try Astia. I didn't care for Provia but I like the Astia shots I've been seeing.