Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

[Klainmeister]

Oh and Velvia - curves or not, if there's one film I think takes "very inaccurate but people like the inaccurate look" to an extreme far beyond Kodachrome, it's Velvia. I'm not talking about how well curves match, just the level of saturation. Not many people claim it looks realistic, but people seem to love it. I'm not one of them, finding it exaggerated and garish most of the time, though I do like it for subjects that need a color pop shot in dull lighting.

Kodachrome has a realistic look to me even if I can identify where the color isn't accurate. That's hard to explain but easy to see. There's something about it that looks very "real" somehow.

Probably a result of being an American and us seeing Kodachrome films and pictures constantly up until more recently. That is real to our perceptions.

Funny, I hear that about Velvia all the time too, and I understand it, but frankly when I am out shooting in Canyonlands, Velvia is the only one that actually does catch the vibrancy. Most other films I use don't get close.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, please read the second paragraph of my post 223. That is why I cannot ignore these threads. I have had requests from students trying to piece together a history of Kodachrome, others want to replicate just one color image for a science experiment and etc. How can I ignore this. I said in the post you quote that I want and can do zip. That is not really correct. I can give out information and guide people to sources for more information.

PE

Well you still could, you just choose not to do so. That's commendable, but how could you help those people if the threads were closed? Exact same result as if you ignored them. So you say you can't do it one way, but can do it if the mods do it for you. If you are really tired of answering questions and giving out information about Kodachrome, just stop doing it. You have no obligation to do so nor to get the mods to do it for you.

Honestly, we all appreciate all you do here, but you don't have to do everything (or anything) that you don't find fulfilling or don't want to do, just because you CAN. I've been told more than once I'm too nice for my own good. I think I can pass that comment on now.

 

[Roger Cole]

Probably a result of being an American and us seeing Kodachrome films and pictures constantly up until more recently. That is real to our perceptions.

Funny, I hear that about Velvia all the time too, and I understand it, but frankly when I am out shooting in Canyonlands, Velvia is the only one that actually does catch the vibrancy. Most other films I use don't get close.

Well...maybe that's a factor of how colorful our surroundings are. It doesn't look like any reality *I* know, but I've never been out there. Well, it can - as I said, on an overcast day with a subject that should have bright color, it can make it look more like it would look on a sunnier day. But using it in already vibrant light seems to be overdone. My luke warm reaction to it also comes in part from the fact I've always found it difficult to shoot well. It has (or seems to have - I've not measured it just shot it) a range even narrower than other E6 films. I do a bit better with E100VS (alas) but would only use it in similar circumstances.

 

[Klainmeister]

Well...maybe that's a factor of how colorful our surroundings are. It doesn't look like any reality *I* know, but I've never been out there. Well, it can - as I said, on an overcast day with a subject that should have bright color, it can make it look more like it would look on a sunnier day. But using it in already vibrant light seems to be overdone. My luke warm reaction to it also comes in part from the fact I've always found it difficult to shoot well. It has (or seems to have - I've not measured it just shot it) a range even narrower than other E6 films. I do a bit better with E100VS (alas) but would only use it in similar circumstances.

I know that when I used it in the PNW I thought it was garrish, but down here, it seems to fit the red landscape better. Maybe my desires have changed. It is extremely narrow, so its good to bracket.



OK back to Kodachrome

 

[wblynch]

Sal, you could not be more correct! That is why Fuji had the E6 market cornered.

Bill, when you are trying to help someone with information, you don't ignore them. OTOH, you have to tell them that enough is enough.

PE

I understand Ron, we all admire you immensely and thank you for all your contributions. I just hope you can save yourself a little sanity.

Take care, Bill

 

[Photo Engineer]

Roger, thank you. I'll shut up!

K.S., Roger, in surveys, most people pick garish color over muted color as long as the color is accurate. And so a red can be a red, not an orange, but the customer inevitably selects bright red rather than red. If you look at a Munsell or CIE chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB. You will find that people expect high saturation and brightness. See the enhanced color photo compared to the original on the CIE page.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Please, I don't need any flattery! But thanks. I appreciate your comments.

PE

 

[RPC]

Since Kodachrome is, for all intents and purposes an obsolete item, and due to its cult-like popularity, why not start a forum on this site devoted just to Kodachrome? Everything Kodachrome could then be posted there, for those interested, sparing others the continually popping-up Kodachrome threads in this forum. If someone started one on this forum, it could just be moved there. Just a thought.

 

[Klainmeister]

I think almost every segment of film has become cultist, so we'd have to do that for everyone. Good god, if we gave Kodachrome a forum, could you imagine the uproar from the Leica folks that they don't get their own?

 

[wblynch]

...Good god, if we gave Kodachrome a forum, could you imagine the uproar from the Leica folks that they don't get there own?

They have entire SITES. And control a number of others

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, thank you. I'll shut up!

K.S., Roger, in surveys, most people pick garish color over muted color as long as the color is accurate. And so a red can be a red, not an orange, but the customer inevitably selects bright red rather than red. If you look at a Munsell or CIE chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIELAB. You will find that people expect high saturation and brightness. See the enhanced color photo compared to the original on the CIE page.

PE

And I prefer the right side of the photograph in the Wiki article, or at least I do assuming that sky is accurate. I like the bright blue sky of the left side, but I've seen skies that appear that blue plenty of times. I don't like the garish neon green of the plants on the left. Plants just don't look like that, at least outside of cartoons. When I go visit family back in east TN I always marvel at the much more vibrant shades of green in the grass and trees (during times of year they are green of course) as opposed to here in Georgia, but even they are not THAT green.

Isn't there an inherent conflict between saturation and color accuracy at some point, where to make the color more saturated it has to be more purely one wavelength, whereas the original was more mixed?

In any event, when I started photogtraphy Kodachrome was known for its saturation, compared to the E4 and early E6 films, and especially compared to, ugh, Kodacolor II consumer C41. We used Vericolor II type S, later III, when we wanted saturated prints. I liked the more saturated look of Kodachrome then, but somehow the race was on and I thought it got kind of carried away later.

OTOH, I did shoot a fair amount of Agfa Ultra 50 so I'm hardly one to talk. But that was for very specific subjects that worked with high saturation, like I agree Velvia does, not for general use (and talk about garish Caucasian skin tones, ugh! But it was great for bright cars, some sports in bright enough light etc.) I much prefer today's Ektar 100 though: not quite as saturated but very saturated, an extra stop of speed, much sharper, and decent flesh tones if people wander into those shots.

I always liked Kodachrome but didn't shoot much of it because I could process E6 myself, and also because 64 is pretty slow never mind 25. When they came out with 200 I tried it but found it quite grainy. Besides, it was such an icon it would always be available and I could always shoot it later. Sigh. I did shoot quite a few rolls I could find in 2010. I had one left over I just didn't have time to shoot. I'm not even sure where it is now, not that it would be worth $250 to me to process.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Isn't there an inherent conflict between saturation and color accuracy at some point, where to make the color more saturated it has to be more purely one wavelength, whereas the original was more mixed?

Roger, as one who works in colourimetrics in a hybridised workflow, I draw your attention to the following statement:

"Additionally, many of the "colors" within Lab space fall outside the gamut of human vision, and are therefore purely imaginary; these "colors" cannot be reproduced in the physical world."

The garish rendering of the image on the left is an oversimplification of the way LAB tweaks the gamut (saturation and brightness) to try and approximate human vision, but we do not see the view this way. The colour space is just awful for practical use and certainly should be avoided with films like Velvia, Provia, what remains of the Kodak emulsions and anything with high RGB values. I've noticed that LAB is routinely applied to photographs in Royal Auto, (e.g. AAA in other countries). The colourisation is terrible, a joke.

Kodachrome was not a very saturated film to my eyes. The many hundreds of slides I have in archives could be described as bright and lively, but not saturated. If saturation was required, a polariser would be slapped on, an in many landscape images I have of the 80s and early 90s, that's what I did.

That Wiki article, while informative and well researched, is bogged down in a welter of grand technical methodology and resource that in modern colourimetric work is totally unnecessary beyond basics because so much of the work is automated (it has to be; photographers and artists would never get any work done puddling around all this!). An example is the deep CIELAB-CIEXYZ conversions and the incredibly foggy CIELAB explanation.

 

[StoneNYC]

And practically all AF-finder film-cameras used the contrast detection (either in the active or passive version).

Oh ok, I guess since all new digi cameras have it it's not a notable feature so that's why I've never heard of it. Thanks


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak worked on a t-Grain and an ISO 400 Kodachrome but none of this went to market. The photo magazines who got samples were "ho-hum" about it in the face of the new E6 films.

PE

Do you have some? That would be cool to have just for coolness purposes haha


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

Do you have some? That would be cool to have just for coolness purposes haha


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may have just made PE's head explode.

 

[StoneNYC]

To me, Kodachrome is almost like the beginning of me being a REAL photographer.

I'd been shooting with my dads SLR for over 15 years and "professionally" for around 5, but I didn't feel like a real photographer, I had never shot film professionally Amd had been using digital ever since I went "pro" so when I heard about Kodachrome shutting down I realized this was my last chance. I had loved national geographic and Steve McCurry's work and still had NEVER shot on Kodachrome, only cheap Kodak gold or similar Walgreens type, since I was a kid, I simply brought it to the store, never developed anything myself, never took a class on it. Etc. I shot 3 test rolls of film on Kodachrome in October, got them back and they were ok, adjusted my shooting based on those 3 rolls and headed out and spent an entire month flying all over the country and never knowing how a single shot would come out till after I was done and at the lab in Kansas in the last day when I delivered my final batch. They had shipped my previous batches so I didn't see anything till I got home.

Everything came out amazingly well, I felt so accomplished, confirmed my skill level as a professional and gave me a purpose as a photographer.

It holds a special place in my heart, and I hope my future book about the adventure is well received (just finished recovering from the financial hit of the trip, and still scanning the film, it's a lot for me, i want it scanned perfectly and accurately, but I know my end result will be awesome.

Anyway, we all have a Kodachrome story, that's what makes it powerful I think. For me it fulfilled a childhood dream, still wish now I could shoot more, on 120, and take better advantage of the one roll of ASA 25 I had (everything else was 64). And create more as I improve and learn, but I guess I'll have to settle for Velvia haha I also miss Ektachrome (the blue tinge one) as I love the odd color caste, but at some point you have to let go of expensive or hard to find film and "focus" on what is available and consistent...

There was a point to this post, not sure if it made it through, but I guess it's that, we always miss the past, we forget the bad and only remember the good, so all the difficulties of K have left, and what's left are green grasses and red flowers and joy in our hearts for a time long since passed...

(I think I should save part of this post for my book... Lol)


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

You may have just made PE's head explode.

Haha I know, I know of said that on purpose haha, though I was thinking of hanging Kodachrome strips on my Christmas tree like streamers... Hahahaha


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[madgardener]

Ok, I have been debating doing this for awhile and decided to go ahead and ask:

I have recently found a roll of kodachrome 64 that my father in law exposed, who knows how long ago, is there anyone here who would be willing to take this roll and develop it? I doubt I have the skills, and know I don't have the patience with removing the rem jet, to develop it properly. I really want this roll developed, and if you want to know why, send me a PM.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ok, I have been debating doing this for awhile and decided to go ahead and ask:

I have recently found a roll of kodachrome 64 that my father in law exposed, who knows how long ago, is there anyone here who would be willing to take this roll and develop it? I doubt I have the skills, and know I don't have the patience with removing the rem jet, to develop it properly. I really want this roll developed, and if you want to know why, send me a PM.

See this thread. The OP is someone who has successfully done it. If I had film like that it'd be worth $250 to me, even knowing age might have done irreparable harm:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Roger, it is $250 per roll, minimum 5 rolls...do the math!
Add insured postage (and risk of loss) from whereever you are to Sydney, Australia.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Some things in life just can't be reduced to equivilent piles of one hundred dollar bills...

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok, I have been debating doing this for awhile and decided to go ahead and ask:

I have recently found a roll of kodachrome 64 that my father in law exposed, who knows how long ago, is there anyone here who would be willing to take this roll and develop it? I doubt I have the skills, and know I don't have the patience with removing the rem jet, to develop it properly. I really want this roll developed, and if you want to know why, send me a PM.

Let us know the results when you can save up the $1,250


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Or we could "group buy" and each submit one roll haha


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to start with, I have NO ISO 400 Kodachrome. Although, by reports, it did make mud look like mud! Maybe more so!

I cannot process the film except to B&W, but then anyone can do it.

I used the example on Wikipedia as an example only. But, on average, the one on the left is chosen or something in between. This is not uncommon.

As saturation goes up, errors creep in due to errors in the dyes or in the imaging process, so for example as red saturation goes up, detail is lost because you are removing yellow and magenta which represent the real only source of detail. This is called undercut, where the saturation of one color is undercutting the presence of another color. At least that is the way we refer to this in film design.

I found 1/2 brick of a C41 coating in the freezer today. IDK what it represents, as it is a plant experiment with an FW before the emulsion # and no other detail. So, sorry, no Kodachrome. I do have a Kodachrome experience to relate though. When E6 came out, I quit using Kodachrome!

Thats it.

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, it is $250 per roll, minimum 5 rolls...do the math!
Add insured postage (and risk of loss) from whereever you are to Sydney, Australia.

Yeah, I got it. I figured, as someone below your post suggested, that folks might find five people to go in on a five roll order. Postage would be insignificant compared to the price.