Prints from Kodachrome

[Vonder]

I got back some K64 yesterday and there are some really really nice images in there. While I fully intend to subject family and friends and passers-by to projected slide shows, I also want to get some prints.

Therein lies my lack of love for Kodachrome. I can't scan it very well, so I'd prefer to send the slides to a good lab who can do them justice. Can anyone recommend a good lab for this?

Please, only share personal experience here, along the lines of "I sent LabX my Kodachrome slides and they did a GREAT job" instead of "I sent LabX my Ektachrome slides and they made awesome prints, probably will do a good job with Kodachrome..." or "I know LabX does printing from slides, try them!".

 

[DanielStone]

i personally would recommend AT LEAST a lab that uses the Imacon scanners, but IMO, I would have them wet-mounted, aka: drum scanning. I had some done a month or so ago, and i had a file that i could print a 12"x18" print from. It was a little expensive, but definitely worth it!

there should be at least 1 lab in Iowa that offers drum scanning, otherwise there are companies that offer it via a mail-order service

However, I have NO connection with these companies, and I've never used them myself. Just to let you know.

www.drumscans.com

www.geckocustomlab.com

West Coast Imaging (I've heard LOTS of great things about them)

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/scanning.htm


there are many others, but these are just a few

-dan

 

[nickrapak]

I am not sure how much you are willing to spend, but there is an optical process called Cibachrome (Ilfochrome). In my opinion, it is the way to get the most "punch" out of a Kodachrome slide. However, prices can be really prohibitive at ~$50 for an 8x10" print.

If you are not looking at spending that much, a good drum scan can deliver comparable quality results, and the scans are arguably at a higher resolution than an optical Cibachrome.

 

[Pupfish]

Darn few labs do optical Ilfochromes anymore. The process does persist however, as the sole remaining way to make a print directly from a slide without an internegative. But the materials can be hard to find fresh, especially hereabouts in the State of CA due to the chemistry having hazardous materials restrictions to shipping.

Yet I did make Ilfochromes in good quantities, from Kodachromes with custom pin-registered contrast masts my own wet darkroom for more than 5 years myself, up until about 5 years ago when I proved to my satisfaction that other processes (both C41/RA4 optical prints and later hybrid scan to wet print on RA4) are superior in nearly every way.

The one niche I can think of that "Cibachromes" still hold onto is a sales/branding perception-- which emphatically states that they're more archival and have better/richer color. Both claims are highly subjective. In comparison to the gamut of other newer processes, the over-amped saturation is considered rather passe, and will not be well suited to a great many subjects.

If your primary objective is to make prints for the final use, you'd be wisest to start with one of the many excellent print film, not Kodachrome. (If you're smitten with Kodachrome and need to scan it, find someone with a Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 --either version I or II-- before you conclude you need to spend big bucks for wet drum scans. I routinely print 16x20 from such scans at a native 300 dpi. The DMSE 5400's version of ICE works with Kodachrome. For further amplification there's also the HybridPhoto.com forum spun off from the APUG forum, where these matters are more appropriately discussed.

 

[Venchka]

GOOGLE Ilfochrome in Hattiesburg, MS. If a Kodachrome slide is worth printing, it's worth printing right.

Or search Ilfochrome labs right here at APUG.

CORRECTION: Darn Darn Double Darn! They quite making them. Crap. I waited too long.

 

[Vonder]

I am somewhat amazed at the responses so far... so far nobody has any direct experience with getting good quality prints out of a Kodachrome slide. As much as I love a projected slide, I do sometimes take a picture, silly me, on slide film instead of negative film, that I'd like a print of. With my usual slide film, Fuji's Astia, this is no problem. It's easy to scan.

I suppose I should work on my Kodachrome scanning skills and materials instead. I've been curious if a FF sensor DSLR can get a decent image using a slide duplicator or macro lens. I'll see if mine can do Kodachrome better than my scanner.

 

[2F/2F]

I have had good results at the Lab Ciba in Burbank, CA using a variety of transparency films, Kodachrome 200 included. Get your bank account ready for the hit. http://www.lab-ciba.com/

I have also had Kodachrome 200 drum scanned at A and I and output onto RA paper via Lambda printer. It is also expensive, and does not look the same.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

It might be a dumb question, but if Dwaynes processes Kodachrome, shouldn't they have the means to produce a decent print from it?

Dave

 

[bobwysiwyg]

I've been curious if a FF sensor DSLR can get a decent image using a slide duplicator or macro lens. I'll see if mine can do Kodachrome better than my scanner.

Probably better posted to the hybrid site, but since it wasn't. I had some slides (Ekta's) that had some value to me. I wanted to print a couple, the scanning wasn't great and only if I took them out of the mount. I used a slide duplicator on my Nikon D100 (almost a vintage cam, so that should be OK ). You don't say what you intend to do with the print. This was just a snapshot, taken 40 years ago, not ideal circumstances and highly compressed.

 

[nickandre]

Dwaynes sure as hell knows how to scan kodachrome. I've gotten a photo Cd of images from them, unfortunately fairly low resolution images. I know they make prints from slides, but I'm not sure of the quality. If you're unsure, I would start with Dwaynes.

FYI the first poster indicated success with wet mount drum scans...

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

A less expensive way to get a decent print from Kodachrome is to make an internegative. The lab I used for this has since passed away, though, and I think Kodak stopped making the film for this. The best prints from Kodachrome are dye transfer, but that's dead too. Ilfochromes are good, but pricey. There is (was?) a color reversal paper for making prints directly from slides, but the colors were never right.

Hmmm. Can't get their from here, analog wise.

When I need a print from Kodachrome I scan it in an old HP PhotoSmart scanner. Many modern high end scanners can't scan Kodachrome as they expect the film to be transparent to IR, which Kodachrome isn't. A good drum scanner won't have this problem.

 

[DanielStone]

I've personally scanned kodachromes on an Imacon scanner, and I had no trouble. TBH, I haven't scanned them on any other scanners, but after having some drum scans done, and scanning them myself on the Imacon, the drum scans are cleaner, offer better color reproduction before post production in PS (this is really a topic for hybridphoto.com, APUG's sister site). grain is less apparent as well, especially in the shadows. also, the resolution available off of a drum scan is considerably higher than that off a flatbed scanner. I will stop this digital talk now, go to www.hybridphoto.com and look in the forums there, you'll most likely get the answers you need

best of luck to you though

-dan

 

[Pupfish]

Yep, Kodak stopped making interneg film; they also recently recommended Portra NC 160 as a substitute for this use.

And no Wolfeye, I never said that you can't still get a decent print from Ilfochrome. I used to do so, routinely. But the process is not without a measure of pain . Roughly 1/3 of my Kodachromes never needed a mask, 1/3 required a custom contrast mask of varying strength (Pan Masking Film is also no longer being made), and 1/3 never would print on Ilfochrome to my satisfaction.

Ilfochrome is simply a process I no longer chose to do, the decision being as much due to the difficulty and expense of acquiring the materials as it was due to superior processes becoming readily available.

 

[Vonder]

Thanks for all the replies!

I went back to a scan of one of them and after much tweaking, have something I think is almost printable. It's hard to judge.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Try sending them off to Dale Labs (www.dalelabs.com) and they will certainly strive to get you what you are looking for. If you really want the best quality that is ever possible, try having some Ilfochromes made. Visual-Imaging does very good work Dead Link Removed

 

[StorminMatt]

If your primary objective is to make prints for the final use, you'd be wisest to start with one of the many excellent print film, not Kodachrome.

Given the fact that, unless you DIY, virtually NOBODY is makes optical prints from negatives, C41 film holds no real advantage over slide film if you want prints (unless you just prefer the look of C41, but Astia pretty much looks and acts like C41). If you like slides, keep in mind that slide film does a better job at making prints than C41 does at making slides.

 

[gr82bart]

Therein lies my lack of love for Kodachrome. I can't scan it very well, so I'd prefer to send the slides to a good lab who can do them justice. Can anyone recommend a good lab for this?

I have used Duggal in NYC, Elevator in Toronto, Gamma in Chicago and A&I in Los Angeles and all of them did a great job for me.

I'd recommend Duggal and Elevator only because they have a Lambda or Light Jet and the print is therefore chemical/wet process, not an inkjet.

http://www.duggal.com/
http://www.elevatordigital.ca/
http://www.gammaimaging.com/
http://www.aandi.com/

Also check out the APUG Hybrid Social Group before this thread closed down by the moderators: (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Regards, Art.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Given the fact that, unless you DIY, virtually NOBODY is makes optical prints from negatives, C41 film holds no real advantage over slide film if you want prints (unless you just prefer the look of C41, but Astia pretty much looks and acts like C41). If you like slides, keep in mind that slide film does a better job at making prints than C41 does at making slides.

My primary objective is to make prints and C41 is (obviously) my choice. Let me tell you some facts...

1. C41 is more tolerant when it comes to sloppy metering. Just because it is scanned, it doesn't mean that the exposure latitude isn't an asset.
2. Why pay more for an E6 film if I don't want to project? There are (and there will be) many C41 films that do the job nicely. And why pay more for E6 processing either?
3. Check the availability of E6 labs. Not many left and you don't have the added bonus of C41's fast processing. You don't need to wait for days.

 

[gr82bart]

My primary objective is to make prints and C41 is (obviously) my choice. Let me tell you some facts...

1. C41 is more tolerant when it comes to sloppy metering. Just because it is scanned, it doesn't mean that the exposure latitude isn't an asset.
2. Why pay more for an E6 film if I don't want to project? There are (and there will be) many C41 films that do the job nicely. And why pay more for E6 processing either?
3. Check the availability of E6 labs. Not many left and you don't have the added bonus of C41's fast processing. You don't need to wait for days.

My preference is for transparencies, let me tell you some counter-facts.

1. Transparencies force you to take better colour images. Maybe not in my case, but in general.
2, Why not? Why do you care what I or other transparency photographers pay?
3. So what? E-6 processing is three hours or less in all the places I have mentioned and others, so I don't know what you mean by days.

Anyway, I really shouldn't debate with you, but let's not expedite the slaying of another set of film photography, k? Shoot what ever film you want but don't set about the demise of what other film photographers want to shoot. Digital is already doing that for all of us. We should be supporting each other.

Regards, Art.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Wow there Art, it wasn't meant to be a heated debate. I'm just saying that there are advantages, nothing more, nothing less. And for the record...

1. Yep, slides force you to do your best, but what if your gear isn't up to the task?
2. I don't care about what you pay for slides. I'm just saying that if prints are what you want E6 offers no real advantage IMHO. Unless of course if you just love the color palette of a specific slide film.
3. I'm glad that you have that option, but that's not the case for most places in the world. The ever dwindling amount of E6 labs worldwide is a negative sign I'm afraid.

Finally, if slides survive or not depends on their usefulness, not on what a guy (me) posts at a forum.

 

[StorminMatt]

Wow there Art, it wasn't meant to be a heated debate. I'm just saying that there are advantages, nothing more, nothing less. And for the record...

1. Yep, slides force you to do your best, but what if your gear isn't up to the task?
2. I don't care about what you pay for slides. I'm just saying that if prints are what you want E6 offers no real advantage IMHO. Unless of course if you just love the color palette of a specific slide film.
3. I'm glad that you have that option, but that's not the case for most places in the world. The ever dwindling amount of E6 labs worldwide is a negative sign I'm afraid.

Finally, if slides survive or not depends on their usefulness, not on what a guy (me) posts at a forum.

1. Equipment not up to the task of shooting E6? Well, you're in luck. Used film equipment is the eptiome of cheap these days. There's no reason why you can't pick up a camera that can do a good job with E6 for virtually nothing.
2. C41 has a price advantage only if you are willing to put up with drugstore processing and/or not have proof prints made (and choosing pictures to enlarge without proofs is not easy for most of us). If you have C41 processed with 4x6 proof prints, you are going to pay MORE than for E6 processing at any kind of quality lab.
3. C41 processing these days is primarily going to be drugstore processing, where the quality is questionable. When it comes to professional quality labs, it is every bit as hard to find C41 processing as it is to find E6 processing. All E6 labs in Sacramento that have stopped E6 have also stopped C41 in favor of all-digital services. I can't see this NOT being the case elsewhere.

As for the future of slide film, it actually IS influenced by what people like you say. When people hear that it is pointless to shoot it from everyone out there, they will abandon it even if they like it. Just like the legions of people who used to shoot C41, and abandoned it in favor of digital.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If you like slides, keep in mind that slide film does a better job at making prints than C41 does at making slides.

I totally agree(!), but so many people don't.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I skipped the 1,2,3 part because it's either too subjective, or availability and prices vary a lot around the world. Anyway...

As for the future of slide film, it actually IS influenced by what people like you say. When people hear that it is pointless to shoot it from everyone out there, they will abandon it even if they like it. Just like the legions of people who used to shoot C41, and abandoned it in favor of digital.

No, I disagree. Everyone who reads my posts (or anybody else's) has to think a bit and see if I'm right or wrong. An E6 shooter can give C41 films a try and if satisfied, will switch to them. If not, he'll continue using slides. As for the legions of ex C41 shooters who use digicams, well, if they are satisfied with the result and enjoy what they're doing, then they did well. I know it hurts to say so, but that's the truth.

 

[gr82bart]

I know it hurts to say so, but that's the truth.

It's not the truth. It's your arrogance.

Regards, Art.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It's not the truth. It's your arrogance.

Regards, Art.

What?! Have a look again at my post and think for a moment. Whoever dumps something for something else, whatever might that be, and finds the new thing equally good and enjoyable does well. What's wrong with what I said?

EDIT: It also hurts me to say so.