[Tonytee]

The experience of getting Kodachrome slides back from Kodak has to be experienced to be fully appreciated. Holding a slide to the light and seeing a perfect miniaturization of the world you had viewed through the finder is fully rewarding. This actual thing you hold, was in the camera collecting the picture. Sadly Kodachrome is only a memory now, and E6 slide processing difficult find. That leaves colour print film as the closest way to mirror that experience. (I love B&W but have not got down to doing my own; the alternative is mailing it away, and it is very expensive. to process).
Also, the feel of those pre-automated, built to last, chrome and glass works of art are such a pleasure to hold. And you know, it is silly to say so, but I have the 'aesthetic cheating feeling' using a digital camera. Spray and pray just too easy..

Just an FYI, Fujichrome is very good. Give it a try.

Tony

[gofour3]

Sadly Kodachrome is only a memory now

Yes I miss Kodachrome as well. At least our Kodachrome slides will be around for generations, longer than most peoples digital pictures!

Phil.

---------- Post added 01-05-16 at 07:48 PM ----------

Just an FYI, Fujichrome is very good. Give it a try.

Tony

Yep I have been using Fuji Provia 400X (discontinued) and most recently Provia 100F. Both are excellent!

Phil.

[Alex645]

As much as I love Fujichrome Velvia, Kodachrome 25 and 64 were in a league of their own (200 was a disappointment). I just read an announcement that Kodak might bring back Super8! Super8 Kodachrome started my passion for filmmaking. Just the other day I found some "Super Slides" (mounted 120 Kodachrome slides) that I shot in 1988. The color is as vibrant as the day I got them back from my old favorite lab in LA; A&I (Alexander and Ishihara).

I left Los Angeles in 1990, but that lab was the coolest. If you're a regular in a Japanese sake bar, they keep a cup just for you. At A&I they had film bins for regulars with special instructions for everything from push/pull processing, snip tests, and you could store your loupe there too. As an extension of the lobby, there was a light bar for inspecting your work and a comfortable waiting area as well. And then there was that unforgettable smell. I guess I don't miss that....formaldehyde.

[fuent104]

Not 70mm.

However if digital is better why many important directors still shoot film?

For instance the SW prequels (AOTC and ROTS, I think TPM was still shot on film) were the first movies made in digital and at that time they looked the best thing on screen ever happened, now they look like a sort of cartoon, the last SW movie is awful plot wise (a sort of bad remake of Episode IV) but everybody is crazy on the way it looks.

For me it's the same for still photography.

I don't know anyone who thought the star wars prequels looked very good when they came out.

---------- Post added 01-05-16 at 09:33 PM ----------

^^ When's the last time you were watching a 'shot-on-digital' film and you exclaimed, "Wow! Look at that light!"

Are you serious? I do this all the time. Most movies are shot digitally, including many nominees for the best cinematography Oscar. It doesn't make the lighting look bad.

I am a cinematographer, though.

---

Last edited by fuent104; 01-05-2016 at 10:38 PM.

[filmamigo]

As much as I love Fujichrome Velvia, Kodachrome 25 and 64 were in a league of their own (200 was a disappointment). I just read an announcement that Kodak might bring back Super8!

No need to "bring back" Super8. Kodak makes more Super8 stocks than ever before -- A daylight-balanced color negative stock, two tungsten-balanced color negative stocks, and tri-x reversal.

Kodak's announcement is about recommitting to the format -- with a new Super 8 camera (or two) and simplified handling of processing and scanning.

Good stuff.

[arnold]

No need to "bring back" Super8. Kodak makes more Super8 stocks than ever before -- A daylight-balanced color negative stock, two tungsten-balanced color negative stocks, and tri-x reversal.

Kodak's announcement is about recommitting to the format -- with a new Super 8 camera (or two) and simplified handling of processing and scanning.

Good stuff.

I had no idea this was the case. What is the market for 8mm film, and how is a negative processed for projection?

[fuent104]

I had no idea this was the case. What is the market for 8mm film, and how is a negative processed for projection?

It's probably not a huge market, but it's large enough that Kodak has continued to sell it.

There are a few companies that will process it and scan it. One company in Los Angeles specializes in it.

[Cuthbert]

I don't know anyone who thought the star wars prequels looked very good when they came out.

---------- Post added 01-05-16 at 09:33 PM ----------

I watched AOTC in high definition in 2002 and it looked great, Lucas invested a lot of money in that technology that was later used by virtually anybody in the business, and at that time in the reviews everybody thought it was the future.

Same thing for Avatar which was shot with the same technology, just with few years of further development.

[monochrome]

I d
Are you serious? I do this all the time. Most movies are shot digitally, including many nominees for the best cinematography Oscar. It doesn't make the lighting look bad.

I am a cinematographer, though.

The lighting in digital movies I've watched recently is fine - probably as near to perfect as it can be. That's a technical achievement.

I mean 'light', which is I suppose a subjective evaluation of what the DIrector and Cinematographer actually saw on the set (or more often the location) and how they used analog devices to capture it.

[Alex645]

I had no idea this was the case. What is the market for 8mm film, and how is a negative processed for projection?

All the Super8 stocks are transparency/slide films, not negatives, and are E-6 processed. Color neg stock starts with 16mm and up.

[fuent104]

I watched AOTC in high definition in 2002 and it looked great, Lucas invested a lot of money in that technology that was later used by virtually anybody in the business, and at that time in the reviews everybody thought it was the future.

Same thing for Avatar which was shot with the same technology, just with few years of further development.

I don't agree with the assessment that everyone thought it was the future. It may have been hyped that way, but the Hollywood cinematography community would not have seen the future as being a 2/3" sensor (this negates the ability to use classic cinema lenses) 1080 resolution, and a workflow that didn't include raw files.

The community new digital was the future, but that particular implemenation had noticeable technical limitations.

[Xmas]

I have recently begun to shoot film partly out of curiosity, and since the price of entry is quite low. Now, I'm hooked. I find the experience of shooting is different from digital... the lack of instant feedback, the more deliberate camera control, the more forgiving nature of exposure on B/W film, and the tactile use of a mechanical film camera are all different enough that I consider them different experiences. And developing my own B/W film has turned out to be much more fun than I ever thought. Seeing images on a freshly developed roll film is quite a satisfying experience (and yes, I was surprised at my own success the first few times). I still have a lot to learn about developing and scanning, so right now my images are no where near as good as what I can get from digital, yet I'm still having fun.

If you are patient you should be able to get all the wet print kit for free.
Then you can go exotic, real silver on paper.

[Aoresteen]

.....Just the other day I found some "Super Slides" (mounted 120 Kodachrome slides) that I shot in 1988......

Actually Super Slides are 4x4 slides mounted in 2x2 inch mounts that can be projected in a conventional slide projector. Usually shot on 127 film but Hasselblad made an A16S back that would shoot 16 4x4 images on 120 film so that the images could be cut down and mounted in 2x2 slide mounts. Mamiya made a trimmer that would cut 645 slides to 4x4 for Super Slide mounting.

6x6 slides are beyond Super - they are just fantastic!

One of my biggest regret is I never shot any 6x9 120 Kodachromes when 120 Kodachrome was available.

[gofour3]

One of my biggest regret is I never shot any 6x9 120 Kodachromes when 120 Kodachrome was available.

Yeah same here, I shot lots of 135 Kodachrome but never tried any 120.

Phil.

[Xmas]

6x6 slides even E6 are superlative when projected.

70mm cine theatres must be good too.