What will you replace Kodachrome with?

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,841
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
I know it's heresy but I have replaced Kodachrome with digital. Since I shoot mostly B&W Fuji or however is left selling colour materials won't miss me.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,238
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Eric, I have to agree with you to a large extent. Commercially I don't have a choice when I shoot Rock concerts the specialist Push process E^ films I used have long gone, the clients want the images the next morning in Digital format so it's ano brainer.

I'm also currently working on a commercial book project, but there's no good commercial colour lab near me, and anyway I get paid the same regardless so virtually all the work will be digital, however I'm always shooting B&W film as well, I'll self fund some colour 6x17 images for this particular book because I want those images in it.

Yes your right Digital capure has taken Kodachromes place, but for my personal work C41 colour negative has taken it's place, I need complete control and I still have taht with RA-4 printing.

Ian
 

Kirk Keyes

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,234
Location
Portland, OR
Format
4x5 Format

I replaced Kodachrome in 1984 with Fujichrome.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
302
Location
Eastern Kans
Format
Multi Format
If you haven't taken a close look at Kodak's current line of E6 films recently, it probably wouldn't hurt to do so. The new Fuji E6 film is very good, but for my taste I really prefer Kodak's. I still need to shoot some new Astia, however, but between Provia and Velvia, I generally prefer Kodak. Of course, that's just my taste.

As far as archival qualities, the last I read it sounded like color negative film does not have the keeping properties that E6 film has. Ektar 100 is too new to determine. I have some Ektachromes from 40 years ago that still look good. One problem I have with color negatives is looking at them and trying to determine what they are.

Dave
 

3Dfan

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
221
Format
35mm RF
I'm considering supplanting my realist with a twin rig and I'd be interested to hear about your experiences with your twin rig (i.e. flash sync, how you mount the F3s, etc.).
 

rana

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
1
Location
Kristianstad
Format
35mm

If you take a photo of a negative with negative film. The new "negative" must be a positive. I don't know how to do it in the best way with correct lights and techniques. But I think Q.G. may meant something like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
If you take a photo of a negative with negative film. The new "negative" must be a positive. I don't know how to do it in the best way with correct lights and techniques. But I think Q.G. may meant something like that.

Kodak made (makes?) Vericolor 5072 (also SO-279 in 36-exp. rolls), which is a C-41 film made specifically for taking dupes of negatives to produce slides. I bought a bulk roll of 5072 from an eBay seller a couple of months ago, figuring it would be fun to play with, and perhaps dupe some negatives in the process. It sits in my freezer still -- haven't used any yet, so I can't vouch for how well it works.

Here's a link to a data sheet in pdf format:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e24/e24.pdf
 

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
I have some Ektachromes from 40 years ago that still look good.

I have Ektachrome and Fujichrome slides dating back to 1982, and none of them have shifted to any significant degree. Usually if the color has shifted, it's a slight magenta cast, but this is very easy to take care of.
 

Matt5791

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
1,007
Location
Birmingham UK
Format
Multi Format
E100G is an excellent replacement for Kodakchrome - infact I like it more for a number of reasons:

It's easier to process (I refuse to mail negatives / films etc. for risk of loosing them)
It's cheaper to process
It's faster to process
I can process it myself if I wanted to
It looks every bit as good as Kodachrome (in my mind)
It will probably last as long as Kodachrome, but certainly long enough.
It's available in 120 and sheet format
 

StorminMatt

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
257
Format
35mm
If you take a photo of a negative with negative film. The new "negative" must be a positive. I don't know how to do it in the best way with correct lights and techniques. But I think Q.G. may meant something like that.

In theory, a negative of a negative would be a positive. BUT, in practice, this would not work for a couple of reasons. First of all, C41 film has an orange mask. This would make your negative photo of the negative orange. It would also mean that the colors would be REALLY off, since you would be taking a picture of an orange negative. Furthermore, contrast would probably be COMPLETELY out of wack. The bottom line here is that C41 films are not print films (okay, they are 'film for color prints', but they are not made for printing transparencies from negatives).

With this said, there ARE various print films that COULD be used. For instance, Dale's used to use Kodak Vision cine print film. But this is not a good match for a C41 negative, so the results were less than stellar. Other print material exists, like Kodak Endura transparency print material. But there is the question of who is going to be able to print the slides for you, and how much it is going to cost. Dale's used to charge around $15-$20 to make slides from a 36 exposure roll. And I really can't see it costing any less for anyone else to do this with more suitable materials (if anyone else would even do it).

The bottom line? If slides are what you want, E6 films are both MUCH more convenient AND cost-effective.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,238
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
The negative of a negative is the backbone of the movie industry, but the 2nd film is called a Postive print film because it produces a transparency for projection.

There were once specialist films made for use with normal film camera negative film but they are long gone, but the motion picture versions what you see ta the Cinema

Ian
 

StorminMatt

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
257
Format
35mm

As I said, using negatives to make transparencies is thoroughly possible. But it is neither practical nor cost-effective for shooting slides. Most (of not all) of the products are no longer available. And you probably couldn't find anyone who could do the processing.

Another thing I should mention is that cine films do not have the best longevity. Ever notice how bad even a 20 year old movie or TV series looks unless digitally remastered? This stuff was meant to look good only for the length of a movie run. And after that, nobody cared. As I said, you are better off just shooting an E6 film for slides.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
Please elaborate. Oh, and looking at negatives on a light table or mounting them and sticking them in a slide projector don't count.

A week late (sorry), but it was mostly nonsense of - indeed - the 'you can put them on a light table, or in a slide mount' type (hence the silly face).

There is (was?) a 'dupe' film, turning (masked) C41 film into projectable slides. But you'll lose all sorts of things in the process.

Anyway, i guess the gist of it was that though Ektar is not a slide (projectable) film, it is a film alternative that allows producing images that are not equal to, but (as some will have it - i'm not argueing, but i don't think that Ektar is very close to Kodachrome) equally good as images made on Kodachrome.

The way you view the images is different. But remember that most people will have seen most Kodachrome images not as projected slides either, but printed in magazines.
Myself, i don't care much for the projected image. I hate that type of presentation. So for me it's all about the image itself.
But, of course, other people like other things.
 

StorminMatt

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
257
Format
35mm

I think the BIG problem with trying to use a C41 film as a stand-in for Kodachrome is that MOST people who like and actually SHOOT Kodachrome are into the total experience of the film (just as people are who shoot any other film). And part of the Kodachrome experience is having slides to project or view on a light table. Take this away, and something is REALLY missing from that total experience. And with Ektar (or any other potential C41 stand-in), you LOSE this.

Another thing I should note is that C41 is no advantage if you want prints. It was at one time. But I am willing to bet that there is probably NOBODY anywhere within 100 miles of where you live who does optical RA-4 printing from negatives. Hybrid methods (scan and print) are the rule these days. And slides are every bit as easy (if not easier) to print in this way as negatives are. So unless you just like the looks or characteristics of negative film better or do your own optical printing, there is no advantage to a C41 film if you want prints.
 

Q.G.

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
5,535
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
[...] So unless you just like the looks or characteristics of negative film better or do your own optical printing, there is no advantage to a C41 film if you want prints.

And that's the thing: negative film has better contrast, handles better because of it too.
So there indeed is an advantage, and i would say the opposite: there is no reason at all to use slide film if you want prints.
 

StorminMatt

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
257
Format
35mm
And that's the thing: negative film has better contrast, handles better because of it too.
So there indeed is an advantage, and i would say the opposite: there is no reason at all to use slide film if you want prints.

Negative film does not have 'better contrast'. It simply is able to accommodate a higher dynamic range by compressing it. This can be advantageous in certain situations. But under other situations, this compression of dynamic range makes the shot look flat and dull. Slides, on the other hand, are 'touchier'. But, in exchange, they have more 'punch' and 'dazzle' than C41 (which tends to make them better for outdoor/nature shots). However, in the end, it all really boils down to personal preference here.
 

Moose38

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
31
Location
Independence
Format
35mm
But hybrid methods are what slides provided. You had slide presentations & the ablity to print that image & sell it. This was the backbone of the magazine industry for years. Until digital killed it all.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,952
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
I haven't used Kodachrome for more than twenty years, I use Fujiichrome Velvia and Provia that are available in roll film and 35mm sizes that I use, and I can have it processed in two hours at a local lab.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,238
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Like Ben many of us in the UK replaced Kodachrome many years ago with Fujichrome, in my case initially 50D &100D. The decision was easy, the films were available in a full variety of formats from 35mm to LF, they gave more consistent colour rendition in the often flat UK light conditions where K64 was awful.

The over-riding decision to cease using Kodachrome completely was the poor processing times, and reliance on postal services which added to the delays. Unlike the US there was no alternative processing service (apart from a very short lived service at a London lab) and so when 50D was released which gave comparable sharpness & grain to K25 but with easier processing which was widely available a high proportion of Kodachrome users switched.

Ian
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,952
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm

I still have some 120 Kodachrome 64 slides I shot years ago, and compared to Fuji Velvia 100 F on projection I prefer the Fuji every time.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,196
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
i haven't used it in decades. Ektachrome if I shoot slides again. I am busy with black & white and C-41 now.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…