Whats the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome

Lachlan Young · Aug 13, 2018

Poisson Du Jour said:
It was also quite grainy. Prints (RA-4) produced of my South Pacific trip in 1994 are jarringly grainy against prints made from RDPIII or RVP50. An anaemic palette, though giving the neutral colours you speak of, was not what people wanted then, or even now.

Weird - Astia seemed definitely finer grained than Velvia (50, 100) to me - and the data sheets suggest that too - RMS 7 for Astia & 9 for RVP-50. I'd suspect whatever the intermediate stage used to make those RA-4's was responsible - be it an interneg or a scanner & output device. That said, Velvia 50 does have a big sharpness boost like Kodachrome in the sub 20 LP/mm range, which neither Velvia 100 nor Astia have or had - they are more in line with a lot of Ektachrome MTF curves in that regard. I vastly preferred Astia (and 120 Superia 400) to any of Fuji's other ideas of 'good' colour. But then again, I found that Ektachrome in most of its latter forms was generally more to my colour tastes anyway - and the Portras & Ektar even more so. Then again, I also liked some of the early 2000's Agfa slower neg & pos stocks...

RPC · Aug 13, 2018

Astia was preferred by pros in commercial photography shooting photos where slide film was used and skin tones were important, for example where models were shot, due to its lower contrast, and more natural color rather than colors that pop such as with Velvia. It was the same with negative film, pros shooting people almost always preferred lower contrast films such as VPS and Portra over the bolder films. Not everyone needs colors that pop.

William Crow · Aug 13, 2018

Kodachrome forever.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 13, 2018

RPC said:
Not everyone needs colors that pop.

There is no denying that pop is what made Fujifilm so successful and Astia destined for doom...

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 13, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
Weird - Astia seemed definitely finer grained than Velvia (50, 100) to me - and the data sheets suggest that too - RMS 7 for Astia & 9 for RVP-50. I'd suspect whatever the intermediate stage used to make those RA-4's was responsible - be it an interneg or a scanner & output device. That said, Velvia 50 does have a big sharpness boost like Kodachrome in the sub 20 LP/mm range, which neither Velvia 100 nor Astia have or had - they are more in line with a lot of Ektachrome MTF curves in that regard. I vastly preferred Astia (and 120 Superia 400) to any of Fuji's other ideas of 'good' colour. But then again, I found that Ektachrome in most of its latter forms was generally more to my colour tastes anyway - and the Portras & Ektar even more so. Then again, I also liked some of the early 2000's Agfa slower neg & pos stocks...

Interesting indeed. The prints I have were at the time produced by a Finn (where are you, Asko Sor Rihannenn?) and he was masterful with his work whether B&W or colour, but especially printing from Kodachrome, Ektachrome and then the Fujichrome films. No scanning done in those days, that started around 1998-1999.

RPC · Aug 13, 2018

Poisson Du Jour said:
There is no denying that pop is what made Fujifilm so successful and Astia destined for doom...

But lets not forget that thing called digital and the effect it has had on all of film. That is what ultimately did it in, not its lack of pop.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 13, 2018

RPC said:
But lets not forget that thing called digital and the effect it has had on all of film. That is what ultimately did it in, not its lack of pop.

Sure. But I don't own a digital camera...

Minoltafan2904 · Aug 14, 2018

Kodachrome had a unique color pallette, that is unique and in my opinion cannot be replicated, i have hundreds on KM25 and KR64 slides shot by my father in the 80s and specially the K25 slides are mouth wateringly good.
During the 1980s Fujifilm studied really what consumers wanted, popping colours or realsitic ones? they found people like vibrant colours more than they do realistic ones, Velvia was one of the nails in the coffin of Kodachrome.
I like both, depending on what i want and my subject, i'm glad the new Ektachrome will be similar to E100G, as i find it has a very "clean" colour rendition, while Velvia depending on the light can turn Green, blue, Magenta ( specially magenta )
Provia is one of my favorite films, i shoot it through an 81A almost all the time.

RPC · Aug 14, 2018

Popping colors certainly catch the eye more than more subdued ones. However there are times when high contrast and saturation can look bad. That is why it is good that over the years we have had choices of both. The proof is in the pudding--Hollywood, portrait photographers and wedding photographers have gone the low contrast route whether film or transparency with excellent results. We would not want the bride or graduate to look like bozo the clown. Low contrast transparencies for printing and publication are easier to use, requiring less technical manipulation.

DREW WILEY · Aug 14, 2018

The second generation Astia (100F) was extremely fine-grained, better than Velvia, esp in the shadows. I used 8x10 Astia 100F for second and even third generation duplication work. Nothing else came close to its ability to faithfully repro color or retain fine detail. Even the first version and its tungsten-balanced cousin (CDUII) were much finer grained than famous old Ektachrome 64. Rarely have I stumbled onto a thread packed with as many half-baked opinions based on incidental applications. These categories of film had a progressive evolution generating numerous different species. You can't just throw around stereotypes.

RattyMouse · Aug 14, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
The second generation Astia (100F) was extremely fine-grained, better than Velvia, esp in the shadows. I used 8x10 Astia 100F for second and even third generation
duplication work. Nothing else came close to its ability to faithfully repro color or retain fine detail. Even the first version and its tungsten-balanced cousin (CDUII) were much finer grained than famous old Ektachrome 64. Rarely have I stumbled on a thread with as many half-baked opinions based on incidental applications.

I have a whole bunch of Astia 100F (220) in my freezer.

RattyMouse · Aug 14, 2018

Minoltafan2904 said:
Velvia was one of the nails in the coffin of Kodachrome.

For this Velvia has a special place in my heart.

DREW WILEY · Aug 14, 2018

Hard to say how it keeps. I sold off all my sheets of 8X10 chrome film, both Fuji and Kodak because Cibachrome is no longer around. Some of it had been in the freezer for over a decade, put in there right when I purchased it, and it is still fine. The problem with Astia roll film is that I think it sometimes sat on a shelf at some distributor far too long before being sold; and that has led to some misconceptions. Likewise, a lot of issues blamed on Kodachrome were more likely due to poor quality-control of the processing itself. When Kodalux took over, even scratches were common.

Sirius Glass · Aug 14, 2018

William Crow said:
Kodachrome forever.

Forever what? Not available.

Minoltafan2904 · Aug 15, 2018

RattyMouse said:
For this Velvia has a special place in my heart.

So you are glad that one film was one of the causes of the demise of a great film loved by thousands of people?
That's kind of something a real asshole would say

Minoltafan2904 · Aug 15, 2018

RPC said:
Popping colors certainly catch the eye more than more subdued ones. However there are times when high contrast and saturation can look bad. That is why it is good that over the years we have had choices of both. The proof is in the pudding--Hollywood, portrait photographers and wedding photographers have gone the low contrast route whether film or transparency with excellent results. We would not want the bride or graduate to look like bozo the clown. Low contrast transparencies for printing and publication are easier to use, requiring less technical manipulation.

I also have sometimes used Velvia and regretted it, it sometimes can adopt color casts that are ugly and make the resulting image look nothing like it did.
Then again when the light is right and such it can produce stunning results.

railwayman3 · Aug 15, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
Hard to say how it keeps. I sold off all my sheets of 8X10 chrome film, both Fuji and Kodak because Cibachrome is no longer around. Some of it had been in the freezer for over a decade, put in there right when I purchased it, and it is still fine. The problem with Astia roll film is that I think it sometimes sat on a shelf at some distributor far too long before being sold; and that has led to some misconceptions.e, a lot of is Likewissues blamed on Kodachrome were more likely due to poor quality-control of the processing itself. When Kodalux took over, even scratches were common.

I gave up on Kodachrome around 1996 after regular problems with processing by Kodak, UK. Scratches, blue spots, wonky mounting and slides marked by the heat of the mounting machine. No better when they moved processing to Kodak, Switzerland (not to mention the horrible plastic mounts and boxes...looked like re-cycled polythene!).
I started reusing Kodachrome again in 2009 and up to the close of processing in 2010, when Dwaynes were doing all of the work, with no problems at all. Clean pictures, olde-worlde card mounts, and back in 7-10 days to the UK, even with a return trip over the pond and two overnights in Lausanne ! If a tiny company in Kansas could do it properly, why couldn't Kodak ?

DREW WILEY · Aug 15, 2018

Because it wasn't Kodak. After a certain point, they spun off their K processing to a private outfit that licensed their name, at least in the US. And that mistake was in fact the beginning of the end of the popularity of Kodachrome.

Poisson Du Jour · Aug 15, 2018

Interesting to jog back and note how Kodachrome manufacturing took place here in Melbourne in 1955. It wasn't just a Rochester NY facility. Can PE shed more light on this? Especially if there were other Kodachrome manufacturing areas.
It is understood from other sources that PKL/PKR rolls here in Australia were sent to Kodak in Coburg for processing up until 1998, then contracted out to Vision Graphics interstate, without fuss or problems whatsoever. That would be about the time when cardboard mounts were switched to demountable plastic.

[ Ref: Leggo, Angeletta, AICCM Symposium 2006 (attendee): A History of Australia's Kodak Manufacturing Plant, p7.]

railwayman3 · Aug 16, 2018

Here in the UK, I can remember seeing Kodachrome marked made in the UK, in the USA and in France. Around the late 1990's to 2000's Kodak set up a new film finishing plant near Nottingham (in the middle of the UK), which was promoted as a model new factory and employer; I have Ektachrome films marked "Made in Rochester, USA, finished and packed by Kodak Ltd., Nottingham, UK". We often saw "Kodak" vans and trucks on the main M1 motorway going between Harrow and Nottingham. The factory has long since closed and been redeveloped, the only remaining clue are some local fishing lakes, known as the "Kodak Lakes".

I recall visiting Australia in 1994 and seeing Kodak colour neg film (probably Gold?) advertised as "the colour film made in Australia".

Agulliver · Aug 16, 2018

RPC said:
It was the same with negative film, pros shooting people almost always preferred lower contrast films such as VPS and Portra over the bolder films. Not everyone needs colors that pop.

I'm no pro, but count me as one who doesn't need or want colours that "pop". Probably why I never got on with Kodak Gold. However I do find that Ektar has something, and Ektachrome definitely had something special about it - without trying to make a cloudy day look sunny.

Kodachrome definitely had a unique colour palette and it wasn't to everyone's taste nor was it suited to every occasion. But there was and remains nothing else like it...and for those occasions when it was suitable it will forever be missed.

railwayman3 · Aug 16, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
Because it wasn't Kodak. After a certain point, they spun off their K processing to a private outfit that licensed their name, at least in the US. And that mistake was in fact the beginning of the end of the popularity of Kodachrome.

SFAIK, all process-paid Kodachrome sold in the UK was processed by Kodak themselves (the postal mailers were to "Kodak Ltd., P.O. Box 1, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7EH....an address still etched in the memory of many photographers of a certain age ! ), other than perhaps the short-lived 120 version which went to a London address.

When Kodak closed the UK plant (IIRC, 1990's or early 2000's?), the films were sent to Kodak in Lausanne, Switzerland and processed there. Finally, in the last couple of years up to the end of 2010, films were still posted to Lausanne, but couriered to and from Dwaynes in Kansas.

In the early 1970's Kodak had a workers strike at the UK Hemel Hempstead Kodachrome processing plant, which lasted several months. I remember my Dad showing me adverts in newspapers that said the films could be posted to any other Kodak plant in the world and returned at no extra cost. IIRC, he posted his films to either the French or German addresses....I remember he said that the processing QC seemed better than the UK !

Agulliver · Aug 16, 2018

@railwayman3 you are 100% correct.

After the Hemel Hempstead address ceased working, for a while Kodak used the Deer Park Road address previously used by Agfa for pre-paid processing on Moviechrome film. Then later we were advised to mail direct to Lausanne. 2000s Kodachrome came with a little leaflet listing the last remaining addresses for processing. I was still shooting 135 and super 8 in Kodachrome then and you could get a film back in under a week when everything went well....from England to Swizerland, processed and mailed back in 5-6 days..

DREW WILEY · Aug 16, 2018

Interesting. Since the US was the largest market, and because they dropped the ball here, or more precisely, subcontracted out the processing, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a domino effect in Europe in terms of quality control. But simply having a Kodak-labeled mailer wouldn't inform you of that. That was the case here too. It went to Kodalux after a certain point in time, not to Kodak themselves. It would be helpful if some insider chimed in, with the correct background to separate fact from rumor. But from a practical standpoint, stains and scratches told it all.

Lachlan Young · Aug 17, 2018

Poisson Du Jour said:
Interesting indeed. The prints I have were at the time produced by a Finn (where are you, Asko Sor Rihannenn?) and he was masterful with his work whether B&W or colour, but especially printing from Kodachrome, Ektachrome and then the Fujichrome films. No scanning done in those days, that started around 1998-1999.

My experience with Astia was with the second version, & like Drew I found it extremely fine-grained - I'd tend to suspect what was used for the internegative or for masking at some point in the process - or that a contact internegative was struck, rather than an enlarged one (obviously this depends on the size of the final print). At this distance, trying to narrow down the exact cause is difficult, but it's unlikely to be the origination film.

Anyway, it's also worth noting that there was a big jump in grain between E100G/ GX and E100VS - RMS 8 to 11, which makes it less than surprising that Kodak opted for the least grainy option to bring back.

Whats the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency