Should all Kodachrome users switch?

[Photo Engineer]

Clarence;

I have only used that for Ektachromes, pre 1980.

PE

 

[CRhymer]

touché

 

[kodachrome64]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.185 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

Who can really trust these laboratory tests to tell us how long our slides will last? Who cares? They will outlive us. People will still be able to project our crappy slides of summer vacation in 100 years, but no one will know what a slide projector is.

Shoot whatever film pleases you. Why worry about what people think in 227.35 years? No one will know what Kodachrome or Ektachrome or Provia even ever was.

Nick

 

[StorminMatt]

If you read the data sheet for Velvia 100F, Fuji says that processed film can be stored from 10-20 years with 'almost no change' if stored at less than 25C (77F) and at 30-50% relative humidity. For storage longer than 20 years with 'almost no change', film must be kept at less than 10C (50F) and at 30-50% humidity. Although this data does not indicate a maximum storage life, it sure does not give me much confidence in the ability of Velvia to last over 220 years! By the way, no such information was given for Provia. But it is reasonable to suspect that its storage life is probably VERY similar to Velvia. On the other hand, I have Kodachrome slides taken during my Childhood from about 30 years ago that look as good as new. I also have some Kodachrome slides that were taken in 1946 of my mother when she was a young girl. All these slides look as good as new. And NONE of them got ANY kind of special treatment in terms of storage.

Why worry about what people think in 227.35 years? No one will know what Kodachrome or Ektachrome or Provia even ever was.

Hard to say about that. I can just imagine people saying 100+ years ago that nobody would care about painting or horseback riding due to the invention of photography and the automobile. But yet, they both still exist to a certain degree. There are always going to be people out there who enjoy doing things the old way - especially when it comes to art forms.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ahhh, now if Agfa had made a film called "Echtachrome" that would have been the real chrome.

I love it!

You know, perhaps I am alone here, but the only Kodachrome I bow down to is Kodachrome 25. The others just never did it for me. They never had the same punch or something that I found so attractive in the slower 25 ASA film.

Otherwise, I preferred the Ektachrome line, but it depended on the subject matter somewhat....

Am I alone here?

Any other people out there that feel "Kodachrome 25" was the only "Echta" Kodachrome to speak of?

Ray

 

[Curt]

Use Kodachrome and avoid a costly bail out of the Eastman Kodak Company.

 

[StorminMatt]

Use Kodachrome and avoid a costly bail out of the Eastman Kodak Company.

This brings up something rather interesting. It seems like Kodak is going to great lengths to try to forget about their film heritage and become a digital company. However, I can honestly say that they make the VERY WORST digital cameras I have seen. My brother actually bought a Kodak digital P+S about a year ago, and returned it within a week for a Canon P+S. So if they actually DO survive without a bailout as a digital company, then that says something about how much people actually care about quality.

You know, perhaps I am alone here, but the only Kodachrome I bow down to is Kodachrome 25. The others just never did it for me. They never had the same punch or something that I found so attractive in the slower 25 ASA film.

Any other people out there that feel "Kodachrome 25" was the only "Echta" Kodachrome to speak of?

Ray

Although I don't think Kodachrome 64 is a bad film, I DO feel like Kodachrome 25 was MUCH better. Many other people apparently share my feelings on this, as they are quite willing to shell out $20+ per roll of five year outdated film on ebay. I think that what I (and MANY others) like better about Kodachrome 25 is its greater saturation (vs Kodachrome 64). But it wasn't just that the saturation was greater. The saturation also had a VERY pleasing and natural quality to it, quite unlike the sometimes obnoxious and garish oversaturation of, say, Velvia. It is a look that simply cannot be duplicated with ANYTHING else out there.

 

[Gene Crumly Photo]

Make your prints archival.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I like Ektachrome too!....but certainly not as much as Kodachrome!!!!!!!!!

 

[StorminMatt]

The bottom line is that people who use Kodachrome use it because they like the way it looks. Other films, like Velvia, Provia, Ektachromes, and C41s just don't LOOK like Kodachrome. So while they may all be alternatives to Kodachrome, they are hardly replacements. Now it is inevitable that Kodak will eventually give Kodachrome the ax. But until then, there is no reason in the world why someone who likes Kodachrome should switch to something different. Sure, go out there and try shooting other stuff (even digital). But don't feel like you MUST give up Kodachrome just because other people are telling you to 'move on' to 'bigger and better things'. Photography is, after all, an art form. That which pleases you is more important than anything else.

 

[df cardwell]

Photography is, after all, an art form.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

Many of the pros were driven away from Kodachrome in the late '80s
as agencies and publishers, for reasons connected to the Recession,
reduced the lead time for projects. INSTANTLY became necessary,
and E6 became the ONLY possibility.

Until then, take my word for it, shooting 120 Kodachrome was very cool.

About then, as well, Kodachrome processing stopped being Kodak and became Qualex, and coincidentally, quality became erratic. ('erratic' is a kind and polite euphemism).

The 'hurry up, get it now' social mentality that spawned the strip mall mini lab also played a part. It wasn't that long ago that normal hobby shooters were happy to drop their film off on Saturday to their local camera shop, and pick up last week's pictures. It was a different pace, and Kodachrome was well suited for a Pre Cell Phone pace of life.

So, if you want to BLAME somebody for the demise of Kodachrome,
it probably makes more sense to blame the Programmed Stock Traders of the late 1980s who were responsible for the Recession that forced Kodachrome off the pedestal.

And don't forget the 'get it now, and get it cheap' virus of Popular Kulture.

 

[benjiboy]

I prefer the Fuji range of pro. slide films, I like Astia for portraits, Provia for general purpose, and Velvia for overcast conditions and landscape, and I can get them processed at a local city centre pro lab in two hours while I do my shopping, and collect them on the way home. I shoot 35mm and 120 slides, and all the Fuji pro range of slide films are available in minature, medium format, and large format sizes.

 

[Ian Grant]

As Ektagraphic seems to have revived a three month old thread it's worth adding to it again.

Kodak have now announced the availability of Ektar 100 in 120, so here's a new colour film available in two formats and clearly aimed at the top end of the market, and as a possible replacement for Kodachrome.

Getting conventional colour prints from slides is now a problem with the discontinuation of the R3 Reversal papers, there's only Ilfochrome left, but who knows for how long as sales slumped dramatically. That leaves current major source of prints from transparencies as scanning & the digital route. With scanning it makes little difference if the original is a positive or negative. However RA-4 neg/pos papers are likely to be around for many years into the future along with C41 films.

So the original question should also have had an option of switching to colour negative/print film. If I was still a Kodachrome user I would be exploring the alternatives whilst still continuing with and making the most of Kodachrome while it's still available.

It would be interesting to hear if anyone has done side by side comparisons of K64 and Ektar 100.

Ian

 

[Lee L]

About then [late 80's], as well, Kodachrome processing stopped being Kodak and became Qualex, and coincidentally, quality became erratic. ('erratic' is a kind and polite euphemism).

This is exactly the reason I quit using Kodachrome. Dirty, scratched, mis-cut slides, which sometimes appeared to be "off" a bit on the processing as well.

Velvia also came out about then, and was adopted by nature photographers for the vivid and differentiated greens, taking away a lot of Kodachrome's market. Kodachrome tends to make foliage greens blend together into to a comparatively dull and slightly darker hue.

Lee

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodachrome tends to make foliage greens blend together into to a comparatively dull and slightly darker hue.

Lee

Particularly K64.

Ian

 

[budrichard]

"Should we all switch to Fuji Provia 400x "

What's with the 'we'?
Do what you want and I'll do what I want.-Dick

 

[BobNewYork]

Twas Brillig, and the Slithey Toves did Gyre and Gymbal in the Wabe.
I'm going around my sundial widdershins until I can remember what it was called.

PE

It's not often you hear that in Rochester !!!

 

[Q.G.]

You know, perhaps I am alone here, but the only Kodachrome I bow down to is Kodachrome 25. The others just never did it for me. They never had the same punch or something that I found so attractive in the slower 25 ASA film.

Otherwise, I preferred the Ektachrome line, but it depended on the subject matter somewhat....

Am I alone here?

Any other people out there that feel "Kodachrome 25" was the only "Echta" Kodachrome to speak of?

Yes.
The same for me. I liked Ektachrome 64 much better than Kodachrome 64. The later Ektachrome 100 even more.
The only special Kodachrome for me was the 25 variety.

 

[2F/2F]

As long as it lasts about 75 years or so I am cool with it. That's all I need. Does this mean I can shoot whatever's clever at the moment?

 

[Q.G.]

Now if a film's archival qualities are such that people centuries from now can still admire what we have done, does that not mean that we have a greater responsibility to only put things on film in such a way that all those future generations would actually enjoy having those images, and not get so tired of the endless amounts of irrelevant images that they give up looking for the few gems that might be burried in the heaps of archive quality trash?

And how about the storage problem? Where to put all that film? Who's going to pay for it?

So please counter that longevity by destroying all of your images that are not of museum quality!

 

[StorminMatt]

Kodak have now announced the availability of Ektar 100 in 120, so here's a new colour film available in two formats and clearly aimed at the top end of the market, and as a possible replacement for Kodachrome.

You can certainly make the argument that any one of a number of E6 films could be a replacement for Kodachrome. But Ektar? HELL NO!! If I can't put it in my slide projector, then it can't possibly be a Kodachrome replacement.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can certainly make the argument that any one of a number of E6 films could be a replacement for Kodachrome. But Ektar? HELL NO!! If I can't put it in my slide projector, then it can't possibly be a Kodachrome replacement.

There's a very good argument for replacing Kodachrome with a similar high quality colour negative film for professional and advanced amateur use where the final use is for high quality prints or scanning particularly for commercial reproduction.

If or rather when Kodachrome is discontinued of course there are plenty of excellent E6 colour slide films that people can switch to.

Kodachrome 64 lags behind most colour films because it's based on old technology, Ektar 25 was supposed to be the negative equivalent of K25 in terms of sharpness, grain & resolution, and it was excellent, however the new Ektar 100 is supposed to be better still and it is being aimed at the top end of the market once the stronghold of Kodachome. and it's far more widely available than K64.

E6 processing has also slumped dramatically over the last 10 years and now there are far fewer labs offering E6, turnaround has gone from 2 hours to 1-2 days in some smaller labs, as the lines aren't run continuously any more.
So a premium high quality C41 process colour negative film like Ektar 100 makes far more sense and is now a viable option for advanced amateur & professional photographers.

Ian

 

[accozzaglia]

There's a very good argument for replacing Kodachrome with a similar high quality colour negative film for professional and advanced amateur use where the final use is for high quality prints or scanning particularly for commercial reproduction.

While E-6 popularity trails C-41 processing, this is not an indicator of its obsolescence or termination. Many photographers shooting colour do tend to stick closely to transparencies, and this is something which StorminMatt plainly indicated: non-projectable film is of limited utility for those displaying these images in analogue capacity. Interestingly, my historical city prof, whose lecture I just left, uses the room he does because it remains the only one in the facility still equipped with a Kodak Carrousel projector. Today, he used it to show Kodachromes of our city which he shot during the early 1970s. For most of my classmates, it was a big "whatever", but for me, seeing these was like sitting down with a generous slice of freshly made homemade cheesecake.

If anything, one may now anticipate the fall in C-41 colour consumption to be proceeding at a more dramatic rate owing to a rapid migration away of snapshooters with their 35mm take-anywhere cameras being replaced by megapixel digital cameras. I don't think either C-41 or E-6 is under threat of extirpation from the market, but most of the labs closing en masse at druggists and neighbourhood shops these days have been only equipped to run C-41 chemistry anyway.

Also, a "premium high quality C41 process colour negative film like Ektar 100" suggests that the market — photographers as well as the occasional snapshooter — has embraced Ektar 100 en toto over other options (in this case, the example was Kodachrome). This really should be supported beyond marketing superlatives with sales figures and marketing data supporting the trend that transparency photographers are eager to abandon that medium. Were this the case, then you might have strong cause to articulate this. Realistically, transparency photographers would probably fallback to one of the Ektachrome or Fujichrome alternatives before looking elsewhere.

Locally (n.b., this is the fifth largest city by population in North America between Chicago and Houston), no pharmacy I've seen stocks Ektar (yet). No grocery store I've seen stocks Ektar (yet). Most camera shops I've stopped into (Henry's and Vistek not yet included here) either do not carry Ektar 100 or are not even aware that Kodak revived the brand name in the last several months (e.g., Annex Photo, Aden, Kornercolor, etc.). For now, typical consumer options remain varieties like Fujicolor Superia and Kodak Ultra Max. And for now, no disposable camera I've seen comes loaded with Ektar.

It's healthy to be optimistic about Ektar 100's future, sure, but I feel it would be shortsighted to hedge on Ektar or any other C-41 films sweeping the colour emulsion market as the direction where colour photography will ultimately aggregate, if not consolidate.

What do others here think?

 

[Q.G.]

I think that the professional projection market has moved completely away from transparencies, over to the digital beamers.
Powerpoint rules, it seems.

I also think that Ektar in 120 format has gotten a very high exposure in forums like this, where its merits seem to be decided upon before it is even available.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Are you planning to be around in 237.5 or 167.5 years time to care? If so, please point me in the direction of your fountain.

There's nothing wrong with leaving a lasting impression!

E6 trannies have a long life also, commonly known to be longer than Kodachrome, but need to be projected occasionally.
In any case, a Cibachrome finished to Museum-Grade Conservation framing standards (9p cotton rag mat, UV retardant glass and hermetic sealing) will last several hundred years — beyond the life of any transparency. Any Cibachrome printer (and Ilford themselves) will tell you this.

[QUOTE by Ian Grant] "E6 processing has also slumped dramatically over the last 10 years and now there are far fewer labs offering E6, turnaround has gone from 2 hours to 1-2 days in some smaller labs, as the lines aren't run continuously any more."[/QUOTE]

In America?
There is no "dramatic slump" in E6 use where I am (Geelong/Melbourne Australia), with the turnaround 1.2 hours in one small pro lab and 2 hours for another, of 6 within easy reach (as opposed to "known extant", meaning plenty more but scattered around).