Kodachrome would have died regardless of digital. E-6 rules. Long live E-6. Anything which cannot be developed at home makes no sense. Film must be cheap if it simply wants to be.
...But the Kodachrome look was never duplicated or even, IMHO, equaled...
And there was an effort made to get Ektachrome to "look right" in terms of overall color response. I would guess that if Kodachrome had had another round of R&D, the "errors" would have been fixed.
PE
You must understand that the Kodachrome "look" was a colorimetric accident or mistake, due to the peculiar nature of the cyan dye that was formed. To get good stability and reactivity, the dye had a very peculiar visual response that created neutrals that were often green. Some thought that the greens were beautiful, and that the sky was beautiful, but in reality flesh tones were harsh and greens were often dark or even black.
It was quite hard to print, and prints and dupes lost detail in reds due to that oddball cyan.
PE
It goes to show that accurate isn't always preferred by everyone.
Well guys, the "norm" in visual response is a balance between C/M/Y when we look at films. Kodachrome has a mismatch in C/M/Y in terms of band width and density of the cyan, and this does what Roger states. Caucasian flesh tones tend to be washed out, African-American flesh tones often turn greenish, especially in the highlights.
Take a look at the 4 figures and observe how well matched the Ektachrome characteristic curves and dye curves are compared to those of Kodachrome. This mismatch in Kodachrome gave it excellent dye stability as well as unique (but odd) color reproduction. Direct side-by-side comparisons of any E6 film with Kodachrome would show you.
And there was an effort made to get Ektachrome to "look right" in terms of overall color response. I would guess that if Kodachrome had had another round of R&D, the "errors" would have been fixed.
PE
Kodachrome would have died regardless of digital. E-6 rules. Long live E-6. Anything which cannot be developed at home makes no sense. Film must be cheap if it simply wants to be.
Ken, you are right. But only in this sense... Look at the threads and out of the 60,000 or so members of APUG, only the same 10 - 20 people are posting. So the people posting are avid Kodachrome users, but in the broad sense the customer base has vanished and there are few true users. In fact, the most avid will still not pay the price projected here in APUG for a roll to be developed, and yet i feel that is the true cost now. Once you realize that Kodak was approaching that price limit, (ie. No profit) then you realize that there is no avid customer base, at least not one much bigger than the people here and there like us posting on APUG.
PE
Didn't need the curves to show that. Velvia's broad success is a more graphic demonstration.Those are very interesting curves. Thanks for the information.
It goes to show that accurate isn't always preferred by everyone.
Ken;
There are 3 or 4 active "Kodachrome is dead, the sky is falling" threads active right now. A fair percentage of my mail is about "what can you do about Kodachrome" and what I can do or want to do is zip! To me, to some extent, these threads are an annoyance. Now, if someone is faced with the best photomaterial in the world, and has never used it, well, how can they complain now when it is gone? They were part of the problem!
I laugh but there is some truth to the bizarre proposal to chain me in a barn and have me process Kodachrome, or build the equipment to coat it. Some people think I can or would do something if the price was right.
Perhaps you see where I am coming from? I wish all of these threads were closed.
PE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?