Survey: How many use Kodachrome?

[AgX]

If KR was so easy to make, there should be a clone or impossible project around.

Kodachrome is not a miracle only Kodak could handle.

In the past aside from Kodak 7 other manufacturers made films like Kodachrome.

To clone or not to clone is not a matter of technology but of profitibility.

 

[MattKing]

I bought 20 rolls of 24 exposure Kodachrome from Dan Bayer here on APUG, when he decided to consolidate his film inventory to 36 exposure rolls.

I also have a few 36 exposure rolls left from local stores.

I plan to use it all.

Matt

 

[Aurum]

So wait, you send it to Kodak in Switz and then they forward it to Dwayne's or does kodak actually process them in Switz? i have a roll that i REALLY want to get developed but i haven't yet gotten round to mailing it to dwayne's because the shipping from Spain is almost more expensive than the developing itself.

Also, would any charitable soul consider selling me a couple of rolls for a less abusive price than they seem to be commanding on ebay send me a PM? Unfortunately I'm a victim of the digital generation and never got to experience the full might and glory of Kodachrome. I'd like to give it a shot before it dissappears forever...


with regards to the equipment... It'll definately be dismantled and if Kodak doesn't want to bother with shipping and finding space for it in a museum it'll end up in the scrapyard shortly after the 31st of dec...

If the roll is European process paid, send it to the nearest address on the mailer. In the UK thats Lausanne.

UK retail of Kodachrome is still around £10ish, and Boots is still doing the 3 for 2 promo.

As for the processing line. Thats nothing high tech or particularly unique about it, apart from the light re-exposure section. If they can't adapt it to other chemistry, or they don't need a volume line like it, that will be salvaged and recycled. The K14 minilabs weren't cutting edge tech by any means. Same sort of tech as your bread and butter shop C41 Noritsu or similar. They were developed so that K14 could be processed 1hr in the highstreet like C41 or E6.

 

[StorminMatt]

Also, would any charitable soul consider selling me a couple of rolls for a less abusive price than they seem to be commanding on ebay send me a PM? Unfortunately I'm a victim of the digital generation and never got to experience the full might and glory of Kodachrome. I'd like to give it a shot before it dissappears forever...

The funny thing about Kodachrome prices on eBay is that I have lately gotten a few rolls of the latest K25 (from 2002-2003) for less than the going price of a fresh roll of K64. Honestly, if you can find a deal like this on Kodachrome 25 that has been kept frozen, I think this would be the way to go. Kodachrome 25 holds up REALLY well when frozen - consider frozen K25 with an expiration date of 2002-2003 to basically be fresh film. I have even gotten good results from frozen K25 from 1989! Plus, most people actually think K25 is a better film. Colors are generally more saturated than K64 (but not crazy or 'over the top' like Velvia). And colors are better in subdued lighting than K64. Of course, a tripod will be needed in most conditions other than bright daylight. But it really is one of the best films of all times. So give it a try.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Kodachrome is not a miracle only Kodak could handle.

In the past aside from Kodak 7 other manufacturers made films like Kodachrome.

But Kodak's was the first, the largest and was available the longest.

 

[2F/2F]

I used it when it was around, but it is not, and never has been my main or my favorite transparency film. I probably shot about 20 or 30 rolls per year on average. My use went down to probably two to four per year once K200 was discontinued. Where I really would have made a lot of use of Kodachrome would have been in medium and large format. I found the 200 ideal for hand held 35mm use, but never really had a huge desire for the 25 or 64.

 

[John Shriver]

I don't want to deal with Kodachrome 64 anymore. Too easy to get gray pictures in less than perfect light. I'd rather use E100GX for slide film in that speed range. (Oh, right, they discontinued that! Starting to stock up on 81A filters to allow using E100G.)

Kodachrome 25 was wonderful, I bought three frozen rolls a few years ago, and got quite a few "keepers" from shooting them.

I bought some of the last Kodachrome 200 at Calumet, newest they had (still in date), kept it frozen, and have shot one roll. Shifted magenta -- the last rolls Kodak shipped were on the hairy edge of expired. I've also had overexposure on the last two rolls of Kodachrome 200 I shot, both in the same camera (Leica IIIa) that exposed Kodachrome 25 perfectly. I don't get that. I think I'll shoot the last two Kodachrome 200's on my Topcon Super D, it's always exposed Kodachrome reliably. Since I have Kodak PK36 mailers, need to do that by the end of the year. The only really happy experiences I had with Kodachrome 200 were with the professional version, the amateur version was hit-or-miss at best.

When the two rolls of Kodachrome 200 are gone, I'd say I'm done with Kodachrome. Unless someone offers me frozen Kodachrome 25 at $7.50 a roll. (Not likely!)

Most likely when I want the high-saturation look, it will be Ektar 100. While I can still get reliable E-6 processing, I don't know how much longer it will be available.

 

[John Shriver]

Oh, the formulas for K-14 processing are in US Patent 3,657,525. Trick is, Kodak doesn't necessarily tell you how to synthesize all the ingredients, and they are probably the only place in the world making them, and the only use for them. So you need a bit of a "hand" from Kodak (or a really good organic chemist) to process Kodachrome after Kodak shuts off the faucet next year.

For instance, the only place 4-amino-n-ethyl-n-β-hydroxyethyl-3-methylaniline sulfate shows up in the web is in that patent.

Also, from reading the Z-50 manual, calibrating the re-exposure is probably trickier than it sounds. Key is exposing enough, but not so much as to expose the next layer. In the process control strips, there are pure C, Y, and M areas, and you check them for any signs of other colors.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Kodachrome 200 (professional version, PKL200 /135-36) was the only reversal film I used throughout arts degree and post-grad visual arts studies before it left our sunny shores here in Australia years and years ago; there are thousands of trannies of it stashed away. Our film was supplied to us free, but probably 80-100 rolls a year from 1985 to 1997 (processed initially by Kodak, then VisionGraphics) when I was also concurrently dabbling with Velvia at that time.

Today's reversal stock (both by Kodak and Fuji) is a vast improvement over the grainy, clinically sterile look of Kodachrome.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

I have some fresh K64, K25 (bought frozen at my hometown), K25 Professional (bought also quite locally), and even K200 Professional (frozen since 1992, and barely usable any more) in my freezer. There seem to be hidden stocks that show up now before it's all over, so I had the opportunity to purchase these films at a reasonable price - more for evaluation than for regular use. For my hybrid workflow, I try to expose these films very accurately, and compare them also with a microscope.

Elite Chrome 100 is at least equal in sharpness and resolution, Provia 100F exceeds both K64 and K25 (and E100G(X) = Elite 100). I can get Elite Chrome 100 as a private-label film at a very reasonable price (3 to 4, w. processing, for 1 process-paid K64).

My comparison tests have shown that the current E-6 films can fully replace the Kodachromes.

 

[StorminMatt]

My comparison tests have shown that the current E-6 films can fully replace the Kodachromes.

It depends on what you expect current E6 films to do. As any Kodachrome aficionado can tell you, Kodachrome has a unique look that no E6 can duplicate. And those of us who like Kodachrome care more about this quality than whether, say, Provia might be sharper or less grainy than Kodachrome. Provia just doesn't look like Kodachrome. And if you like Kodachrome, you might not like Provia. On the other hand, if you are into a hybrid workflow, an E6 film like Provia or E100G might be better. Scanners just seem to handle them better than Kodachrome. And you can always make adjustments to colors in post to get what you want. But if you like the look of Kodachrome, and like to view slides optically, nothing else can fully replace Kodachrome.

 

[railwayman3]

Oh, the formulas for K-14 processing are in US Patent 3,657,525. .

I'd like to try to read something of that (or any other) Kodachrome patents, but that number seems incorrect? Can anyone post correct ones, please.

 

[JohnArs]

I stopped to use it after Kodak closed the Lab in Lausanne Switzerland!
Thats about 5-6 years ago!

Cheers Armin

 

[Maurizio]

I stopped to use it after Kodak closed the Lab in Lausanne Switzerland!
Thats about 5-6 years ago!

Cheers Armin

No, dear, Lausanne closed no more than two years ago... And what's wrong with that? You had always to send your rolls to Lausanne and just wait 10 days more.
I don't understand why some people have incorrect information. I think many didn´t care about Kodachrome so much, they just let it go.
So, it's ridiculous looking at all the people crying for it or restarting shooting it just because it's cool to have done it for the last time.
The fact is: have you supported Kodachrome until the end or not?
If not, it is not allowed to cry over Kodachrome.
If you really loved Kodachrome, you should have bought and shot it as your main slide film. If the cost was too high, you could always decrease the number of pictures taken in one year (usually quality increases).

 

[Maurizio]

I used it when it was around, but it is not, and never has been my main or my favorite transparency film. I probably shot about 20 or 30 rolls per year on average. My use went down to probably two to four per year once K200 was discontinued. Where I really would have made a lot of use of Kodachrome would have been in medium and large format. I found the 200 ideal for hand held 35mm use, but never really had a huge desire for the 25 or 64.

I wrote to Kodak when they decided to discontinue K25. I complained about it and suggested to restart to sell 120mm Kodachorme instead. Sent also a link of a webpage were people reviewed K25 and was completely satisfied.
The secretary replied that she should forward my letter to the managers.. After, silence.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I have some Kodachrome 25 if anyone is looking for some.

 

[Cliffy13]

Even in the days before digital I was always a Fuji man and aprt from a couple of test rolls never really used Kodachrome

 

[jim appleyard]

I use(d) all K-Chromes and man am I pissed! There is NO substitute!

 

[rafaelpeme]

never shot any roll of Kodachrome
i'm afraid that i'd fall in love with it

seriously, it was never developed here in Brasil, neither sold.

 

[Clay2]

Been my favourite since the 1950's, I will miss it. About to load my last ever roll of K64 into Nikon F2AS.

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[benjiboy]

I haven't used Kodachrome since 1974, I much prefer the current range of Fuji pro reversal films they are all available in 35mm, 120 (the sizes I shoot) and large format sizes, my local pro lab processes them in two hours, which is an added bonus

 

[removed-user-1]

When I first shot Kodachrome - in 1993 - I was actually a little scared, because I had been told by fellow photography students that it was very hard to expose correctly. I had already gotten very used to E-6, at that time this meant either Kodak Ektachrome 200 EPD (pro, which I could get for $1 a roll), or Ektachrome 100HC. My first roll of K64 looked spectacular and I ended up shooting many rolls of 64 along with a few of 25 and 200, plus some 40 Type A (which worked great in daylight with an 85 filter). I haven't shot Kodachrome in years, mainly shooting Fuji 200 and 800 print films; if I shoot slide film it's Velvia 50, Provia 100, or Provia 400x. I will miss Kodachrome even though I haven't used it in so long, and I sincerely hope that the Smithsonian Museum of American History takes an interest in the Kodachrome processing equipment. Hey, they have ENIAC, they have a computer technician's toolkit from the 1980s, and they have Thomas Howard's Ankle Camera. Maybe we can start a petition to save the equipment for posterity.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used Kodachrome over the years. The last two or three years not much at all.

Jeff

 

[Moose38]

No film is better for Macro Flower photography than kodachrome. I have to say it's more are faults then kodaks. Because if there was more supply & demand it would not be dead. But at the same time this industry Is killing real photography for imaging. It's been shoved down our throats wether we want it or not. I will not argue what is better. I just perfer film. When digital came along i treated it more like a Format thing. As i format i respect it. But when 35mm came along it did'nt mean the end to medium & large format photography. So why does digital have to try shut out film all together. The Kodachrome color image will go down as one of the best. Nothing with all it's advancements in photography will ever achieve the result that kodachrome image produced. Regardless how big the processing was.

 

[i40west]

I have to say it's more are faults then kodaks. Because if there was more supply & demand it would not be dead.

I shot only digital for several years, since we were led to believe it was The Way. Finally I upgraded back to film, still with a bit of digital for landscapes since I don't have medium format for that, and I'm hearing that from a good number of people -- but it seems that few years "off" was enough to do some real damage to the film market, along with the fact that regular consumers are never going back. So now I feel bad for having "participated" in the demise...

I've got a bunch of Kodachrome left, though, enough to last through the year.