Preferred Kodachrome Speed

nickandre · Nov 30, 2008

So, I've heard lots of people say that kodachrome 25 was far superior to kodachrome 64 and they liked it a lot better. If so, why did everyone buy kodachrome 64 so much more than 25 such that kodak favored the 64 speed over the 25? I personally would prefer the 25 version.

Is this newfound desire for the 25 version born out of the fact that it's no longer made, much like the new "uptick" in sales of Kodachrome due to the imminent cancellation, like a supply and demand thing, or did everyone like 25 better but needed the extra 1 and 1/3 stop of speed all the time? And I suppose the 200 speed was just too grainy? Though I've heard people say that was their favorite. Anyone care to enlighten me?

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 30, 2008

I always preferred K25. The color was like nothing else. My impression was that they stopped making it because some ingredient had become unavailable or too expensive or too difficult to use in light of new regulations, and it wasn't selling enough to re-engineer, while K64 had already been recently re-engineered, so it wasn't a problem.

I had a stash of K25, but I was shooting 35mm less and less in favor of larger formats, so when the price got crazy, I sold it off.

Photo Engineer · Nov 30, 2008

Two reasons.

1. Sales were declining.

2. Quality. It was virtually impossible to coat small batches of K25 on the new coating equipment with the quality that Kodak expected. And, due to declining sales, small batches were what were needed. AFAIK, everything was fine at high speed and in big batches.

PE

nickandre · Nov 30, 2008

My question is more why did the 25 speed go instead of the 64, as many people have said that they preferred the 25.

Photo Engineer · Nov 30, 2008

Maybe Kodak knew more about sales figures than we do.

PE

pgomena · Nov 30, 2008

For me, Kodachrome 25 meant a tripod. Kodachrome 64 could be shot handheld a bit easier. Once I discovered Fujichrome, I stopped using either one.

Peter Gomena

Ray Rogers · Dec 1, 2008

tiberiustibz said:
My question is more why did the 25 speed go instead of the 64, as many people have said that they preferred the 25.

I would agree, the 25 was the best, but needed a tripod, which usually was not at hand when many wanted to shoot... having a higher speed material always on hand and special stuff on hand only when a planned (tripod) shoot was coming up, made sense... money wise.

Unfortunately!

From my perspective
The key would have been to downsize output capacity when sales were just past their peak... high but declining, too early from the perspecctive at the time, but at a time when it could have been done never the less. I don't think we needed the other kodachromes... we needed fast film, and Kodachrome 25. I suspect the other Kodachromes lived off of the reputation of Kodachrome 25, (not that I want to step on anyones toes!) However, the industry was just a monster in size and that is why we suffer today, IMHO.

Ray

kraker · Dec 1, 2008

I've only ever used K64. Echoing the comments above: 25 means tripod. 64 Can be shot handheld. That's what I did, that's what I do.

Besides: it is my preferred Kodachrome nowadays, as it is the only Kodachrome available.

MattKing · Dec 1, 2008

Kodachrome-X was definitely not my favourite.

Matt

Photo Engineer · Dec 1, 2008

A note about downsizing and problems with it.

Sales were not decreasing gradually or in a predictable manner. In fact, overall sales in early 2005 dropped 35% in one quarter. No film company could cope with that and as a result Agfa and Ilford had severe financial problems. Kodak and Fuji survived intact but downsizing gracefully in the midst of that type of downturn was rather difficult. So, some products vanished.

PE

crispinuk · Dec 1, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
A note about downsizing and problems with it.

Sales were not decreasing gradually or in a predictable manner. In fact, overall sales in early 2005 dropped 35% in one quarter. No film company could cope with that and as a result Agfa and Ilford had severe financial problems. Kodak and Fuji survived intact but downsizing gracefully in the midst of that type of downturn was rather difficult. So, some products vanished.

PE

So by implication Ilford haven't survived 'intact' even though their product range isn't vastly disimilar to pre-Harman days ?:confused: Or maybe you're implying Ilford remained intact but downsized gracefully ?
Kodak surviving 'intact' with some products vanishing [in the case of B&W paper a whole product category] isn't an oxymoron ?

Oxford English dictionary:
intact
• adjective, not damaged or impaired.
— ORIGIN Latin intactus ‘untouched’.

Photo Engineer · Dec 1, 2008

Crisp;

Ilford did not survive intact. They were purchased outright by Ilford managers IIRC and renamed Harman and I believe did hover on the brink of closure and bankruptcy. IDK the exact arrangements or situation at present.

Kodak and Fuji survived intact in terms of creditors, but both downsized and eliminated quite a few products.

Now, you can quibble about the exact meaning of the word "intact", but say what you will, Kodak took a severe blow in the downturn and survived. Other companies suffered more severely. Even today, Kodak output is much larger than that of Ilford and their product range is pretty comprehensive. They are producing new products and have an analog R&D staff bigger than the entire Ilford staff. In the end, all things are relative.

PE

nickandre · Dec 1, 2008

I'm not searching for "downsizing was a problem" and "sales figures dropped," this is merely a question about why people bought more K64 than K25. K25 had finer grain etc and people agree it was a better film, I'm just wondering if the reason people didn't use it as much was because "you need a tripod" or something like that which is not true because you hear "old timers" telling of times when they shot Kodachrome 1 (asa 10) handheld, though in the shade or at dusk you really do need one.

Photo Engineer · Dec 1, 2008

IDK, but if there was a market, Kodak would find a way. That is about all I can say.

PE

Pupfish · Dec 1, 2008

It was said back in the day that K64 had a better dynamic range/was less contrasty than K25. I found them to have subtle differences in color handling, with K64 being more accurate in blue skies.

That and the speed improvement for shooting wildlife and PJ made it famous as THE film for National Geographic and all NG-level aspirants.

Other than using K25 with flash for stopping action on macros, I found it tough to shoot anything besides still-lifes or landscapes with K25. (these were a tough sell since 35mm was still quite unacceptable to a majority of magazines for these subjects). Pros used it in the studio with flash because it had the finest grain in 35mm color until 1990. The coupe de grace for K25 was that Fujichrome Velvia 50 had punchier color, equivalent grain and resolution, one-hour turnaround at the lab-- and that pros could shoot it in more formats than 35mm.

Photo Engineer · Dec 1, 2008

I shot hand-held stereo slides with ASA 10 Kodachrome back in the 50s. No tripod!

PE

Craig · Dec 1, 2008

Much as I loved 25, it was pretty much unusable with a zoom lens in anything less than full daylight. 64 made the use of the typical F4 zoom more practical, whereas 25 pretty much demanded fast primes.

StorminMatt · Dec 1, 2008

Pupfish said:
The coupe de grace for K25 was that Fujichrome Velvia 50 had punchier color, equivalent grain and resolution, one-hour turnaround at the lab-- and that pros could shoot it in more formats than 35mm.

Punchier color with Velvia 50? Yes. But more pleasing color? HELL NO! The REALLY good thing about K25 was that its colors were just right. They were more saturated than K64. But they didn't have that tendency to be obnoxious in certain situations like Velvia 50. On the other hand, I agree that the K14 process is probably what has ultimately hurt Kodachrome more than anything else. And lack of 120 in the latter years certainly didn't help, either.

But going back to the original question, I agree that speed is the reason why K64 outsold K25. K25 can be used handheld for shooting outdoor scenics in broad daylight. But for pretty much anything else, you need a tripod.

One more thing. I just have to wonder why Kodak never tried to get K25 colors from K64. It seems like they would have had a MUCH more successul product with K64 if they could have done this.

Ray Rogers · Dec 1, 2008

tiberiustibz said:
I'm just wondering if the reason people didn't use it as much was because "you need a tripod" or something like that which is not true because you hear "old timers" telling of times when they shot Kodachrome 1 (asa 10) handheld, though in the shade or at dusk you really do need one.

Some things are so obvious.
You never need a tripod if you choose not to use one.

But to suggest a slower film does not find more need of stability doesn't seem correct to me.

I have seen some of those hand-held shots...
I have also seen the difference a tripod makes.

Ray

StorminMatt · Dec 1, 2008

tiberiustibz said:
And I suppose the 200 speed was just too grainy? Though I've heard people say that was their favorite. Anyone care to enlighten me?

You pretty much got it there. Although some people actually liked the colors of K200, excessive grain was a pretty much universal complaint about this film. Another complaint about K200 was that it tended to be slower than it should be for an ISO200 film. Combine this with the coarse grain, and you can see that you REALLY had to like its colors to shoot it.

2F/2F · Dec 1, 2008

I liked Kodachrome 200 more than any of the others because it was faster, pushed better, had lower contrast, was more grainy, and was less saturating to color.

uwphotoer · Dec 1, 2008

Well underwater with K64 I only get 6' out of my flash.... K25 is only good for macro work where I shoot.

Rob Skeoch · Dec 1, 2008

I used the 200 for a number of years shooting sports.
It was a bit flatter and that was perfect for shooting dark players in football... when they were in sunlight but the face was in shadow.
It was great for baseball backlit also.
We pushed it to iso 500 but it took a while to get back. Overall it was my best film but the entire pro sports industry is digi now and not going back.
-Rob

df cardwell · Dec 1, 2008

I paid the mortgage shooting K64 in a Leica, and a Hasselblad.
Handheld in the Leica, sometimes a tripod on the Hassie.
All the film was ordered in batches, and I filter balanced all the film.
Adding K25, as lovely as it was, made no sense.
When I needed speed, I shot C41.

When the Kodachrome 120 disappeared, I flogged the Hassie.

When east coast processing became iffy, I stopped shooting K64,
and only shot color in 4x5 (EPN).

Fujichrome was the best justification for D*g*t*l.
Velvia is the best reason for B&W.

Preferred Kodachrome Speed

Which speed of Kodachrome do/did you prefer?

Kodachrome 25

Kodachrome 64

Kodachrome 200

nickandre

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

nickandre

Photo Engineer

pgomena

Ray Rogers

kraker

MattKing

Moderator

Photo Engineer

crispinuk

Photo Engineer

nickandre

Photo Engineer

Pupfish

Photo Engineer

Craig

StorminMatt

Ray Rogers

StorminMatt

2F/2F

uwphotoer

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

df cardwell

Preferred Kodachrome Speed

Which speed of Kodachrome do/did you prefer?

Kodachrome 25

Kodachrome 64

Kodachrome 200

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency