Prints from Kodachrome

I hate this battle between E-6 and C-41! If one person likes one or the other let's use it and make the most of what we have left of it!

Ektagraphic said:

StorminMatt said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Prints from negatives are superior to those made from slides. Even slides made from negatives can be better than actual slides! If you don't believe me, listen to what PE has to say.

E76 said:

Prints from negatives are superior to those made from slides. Even slides made from negatives can be better than actual slides! If you don't believe me, listen to what PE has to say.

Click to expand...

It's a great interview, and I understand and agree with the gist of what PE said. Negative films are amazing, and have many advantages over transparency films in many situations.

However, like so many engineers and other strictly-technically-oriented types, he left a bad taste in my mouth with a few absolutist statements. He seems to project the general view that because something is better from his standpoint as a technician, that it is the obviously the better tool for everything that everyone will ever do. They refuse to see anything other than the technical, and it comes off as being closed-minded and very far-removed from actual practice. They never consider that artists or professional might actually LIKE the technical "imperfections" of a material, learn to know them, be able to control them, and prefer them to the technical "ideal".

In short, I'd rather have the technical information, and use it to make my own opinions. Technical information all too often comes hand in hand with opinions stated as facts as to what people should want from an image.

Personally, for most pictorial applications, I do not usually like images in which the entire tonal range of the scene lands on the straight line portion of the curve. I like compression. It is as simple as that. The compression is what film is all about for me. That's the reason it looks so much better than digital to my eyes. If I want to capture a scene on a straight line, I can shoot digital. If I want to shoot onto a straight line with film, I know how to do it. Even if I wanted to shoot onto a technically ideal film all the time, I would still welcome the availability of aesthetic choice for other photographers via having "inferior" materials continuing to exist. I like Ilfochrome prints because they are unique in their contrast, color, and surfaces. If I don't want that look, I can either be smart enough to not shoot for that process, or suffer the results. Engineers and other tech-obsessed types need to give all users of tools some credit and responsibility, and quit telling us what is best for us, what kinds of things we should be doing in practice, and what results we should be aiming for.

If the picture/situation does not suit transparency film, then don't use transparency film! What's so hard about it? There are plenty of situations that do not, and plenty of situations that do. The fact that negative and positive films have different technical attributes should be seen as a good thing, as it gives artists variety. Negative film being "better" for a long list of technical reasons is no reason whatsoever that transparency film should not be used. One should use whatever tool will give them the results and the control they want. For me, that is black and white neg sometimes, color neg sometimes, color pos sometimes, and digital sometimes. Except for digital, I would be very depressed if any one of them was not there.

E76 said:

Prints from negatives are superior to those made from slides. Even slides made from negatives can be better than actual slides! If you don't believe me, listen to what PE has to say.

Click to expand...

Prints from negatives are better than prints from slides? I guess it all depends on the look you are after. Slides from negatives can be better than slides from E6/K14? Are you perhaps referring to Dale's Lab? Please don't make me laugh.

gr82bart said:

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.

Click to expand...

A and I does as well. It is the standard method that they use to make non-automated prints. They also have a rig set up to do black and white fiber the same way.

StorminMatt said:

Prints from negatives are better than prints from slides? I guess it all depends on the look you are after. Slides from negatives can be better than slides from E6/K14? Are you perhaps referring to Dale's Lab? Please don't make me laugh.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you and 2F/2F have said (the look you're after is paramount), but the simple fact of the matter is that if you want prints, you're better off starting with a negative. (That does not, however, mean you shouldn't use slides to make prints, it's just a negative is designed for prints.) And, contrary to what you have suggested, using a negative is not an inferior way to make a slide. To reiterate, a slide from a negative can be every bit as good, if not better, than one made using actual slide film.

And no, I'm not talking about Dale Labs. (I'm not familiar with their services.)

E76 said:

it's just a negative is designed for prints.)

Click to expand...

Negatives were designed for making prints on RA4 paper by optical means. But, as I have said before, unless you DIY, any print you get from negatives is going to be done by hybrid means. And once you start making prints by scanning and printing, negatives are no longer advantageous over slides. Unless, as I have said before, you prefer the look of C41 film over E6/K14. But if the look of E6/K14 is what you are after from a print (and this look is generally preferred over the C41 look for outdoor/nature photography), you are better off shooting E6/K14, even if a print is desired. Remember, not all of us are into portraits.

E76 said:

To reiterate, a slide from a negative can be every bit as good, if not better, than one made using actual slide film.

Click to expand...

Let's just say I have yet to see a slide made from a negative that is even as good as one taken with my least favorite reversal film. And even if slides from negatives CAN be good, I guarantee you there are going to be few (if any) labs out there who can actually make them anymore. And, if there are, they are (like Dale's) going to both cost MUCH more than E6/K14 processing and probably take longer than sending film to Dwaynes (not to mention that I can get E6 done locally in a few hours).

It's worthwhile checking around for labs that still have an optical workflow available, even if they are primarily scanning for prints.

For example, Foto Fun in New Westminster, BC Canada will still do machine print enlargements optically up to 8" x 12", if you ask.

Last time I checked, some of the Pro labs in my area would still do custom prints optically, if requested. For example, here is one page from GKing Photo's price list:

Dead Link Removed

(NB. No relation )

It's relatively rare, but not impossible.

Matt

MattKing said:

It's relatively rare, but not impossible.

Matt

Click to expand...

In my opinion, it is part of the definition of a "pro lab", or a "custom lab", or a full-service lab". Therefore, when I say something like "go to a pro lab", that is what I mean.

Hey, I love the look of Kodachrome as much as the next guy, it's just the processing woes I grew to deplore. And once I started printing my work for sale, instead of accumulating stock for sales to publications, I realized how handicapping it was.

The dynamic range of print films means that nearly 100% of C41 shots I've ever taken were printable straight up on one of the grades of RA4, without any other masking but what orange mask the neg contained. Fully 2/3'ds of the Kodachromes I've shot and printed on Ilfochrome would not print within the limits of the paper without extensive dodging & burning and/or unsharp silver masking (that is, if they'd could be satisfactorily printed at all).

Hybrid processes have improved on these numbers, and ease the mask-making. But print film still cannot be touched for capturing massive dynamic range versus slide film.

Wolfeye said:

Therein lies my lack of love for Kodachrome. I can't scan it very well...

Click to expand...

Well, my personal experinece is that the older cheap as dirt Epson scanners do a pretty darn good job on Kodachrome slides. Fact is, they just aren't smart enough to get fooled by the Kodachrome. They just analyze the light and do it.

Now, obviously that measns you have to *MAKE SURE THE GLASS IS CLEAN* and you have *BLOW THE DUST OFF* for yourself.

I have an Epson 4180, and it works great on Kodachrome slides.

Michael

I tried having my scans printed but just wasn't happy, so the slide is off to Dale Labs to see what they can do.