[Blue]

I have heard on the news that Kodak is going to no longer make Kodachrome. Having grown up with it, it makes me sad in a nostalgic kind of way. When I got home I played Simon and Garfunkle's "Kodachrome" on my stereo, and felt a bit better.

NaCl(I'm all for digital, but it still makes me sad)H2O

There is a thread that has been going in the film section.

[straightshooter]

I haven't shot Kodachrome since the early 70's but it was always a great film IMHO. One reason I got out of the habit of shooting it was availability of processing while I was in the Navy. You had to turn it to the vendors who came aboard while we were in port and pick it up, usually at the next port. But if you shot Ektachrome, the ships photo lab would process it free for you in between batches of recon film from the aircraft cameras. They would even push process if you shot it at 400 ASA.

So not having experienced Kodachrome in years, can someone tell me what the difference is between Kodachrome and Kodachrome Professional (other than four dollars)? I saw yesterday that Freestyle still showed Professional available and I ordered 4 rolls (although my order now shows pending).

CW

[Rustyoldbug]

I hunted a couple rolls down yesterday - figure I should at least try it before it's gone. As of yesterday Dwanye's had some in stock, there was a vendor that showed up on Amazon selling 5 roll packs, and of course ebay had several people trying to cash in on this.

[ILoveVerdi]

This thread needs more images. Pay tribute, people!

[stevebrot]

This thread needs more images. Pay tribute, people!

Sure...This one has already been posted, but what the hey...

Kodochrome 64



Steve

[NaClH2O]

There is a thread that has been going in the film section.

Thanks Blue

NaCl(I just found out it is the ONLY archival film)H2O

[gofour3]

So not having experienced Kodachrome in years, can someone tell me what the difference is between Kodachrome and Kodachrome Professional (other than four dollars)?

This Kodak technical publication explains it best:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e6/e6.pdf

[B Grace]

Steve, that's maybe the nicest high contrast KR shot I've seen. Beautiful.

I shot two rolls of Kodachrome last July and my local camera shop mailed it directly to Dwayne's. I'm about three hours from Parsons, KS so, get this, I had my slides back in two days. I guess we're on the same FedEx hub or something. I should buy more.

A friend who grew up in Parsons told me the Dwayne's people are good folks. She was curious what they do and was rather surprised when I told her. The funny bit is each time I hear of a tornado in that area I check my map.

[Peter Zack]

Steve, Awesome!!!! Try to shot the scene with any brand of digital camera, It ain't gonna look like that.

All I can say is DAMN! I'll have to go hunt down a couple dozen rolls and go shooting with it this fall just for old times sake.It's about time I got a good scanner to start going through years of old slides.

[nanok]

Steve, Awesome!!!! Try to shot the scene with any brand of digital camera, It ain't gonna look like that.

All I can say is DAMN! I'll have to go hunt down a couple dozen rolls and go shooting with it this fall just for old times sake.It's about time I got a good scanner to start going through years of old slides.

what exactly do you mean, peter? i am genuinely interested to understand, i have shot in the mountains, in the winter, on various medium throughout the years (lately digital), never kodachrome, it's true, so i may be missing something. what can you see in the kodachrome image above that sets it apart so clearly from one which might have been shot on digital?

this could turn out to be quite an interesting tribute thread, me thinks

[Peter Zack]

What I see (granted a digital copy on an internet forum) but an image that has a wider dynamic range with more subtle colour graduations and a fineness to the detail that a digital has a tougher time with. The sky looks great and the snow still has plenty of detail in the foreground area.

Remember that this would be straight from the camera without all the sharpening, post processing and saturation stuff we all do to "finish" an image. Maybe not as dramatic as this but I have similar K25 and K64 shots that my current camera couldn't produce without help from Photoshop.

[nanok]

hmm. in my experience, the dinamic range in a winter scene like that is much lower than you would expect. i don't know about color graduations, i doubt it could be seen on a monitor, on a web sized print, but i think i am not "savvy" enough to talk about that stuff, so i'll be quiet about it.

as to straight from the camera versus post-processed.. hm, if you shoot raw, there is no way around post processing, if you shoot jpeg, especially with our pentax cameras (but not only) you can easily get what you want in camera, adjusting the settings, so i am not sure how easy to discuss this point is, really.

let me try to dig out one of my shots in similar conditions, so we can compare directly, nevertheless, as i think this is a very interesting discussion... here we are



this, in my experience, is about as bad as it gets, as far as dinamic range is concerned, you can see the details are kept in both shadows and bright areas, there is detail even in the smoothest parts of the snow, and the colors don't look half bad (ignore the fact that it's perhaps a tad dark, i do have that tendency, the important thing is that the details and the colors are there, at both extremes). also notice that the kodachrome shot above also loses details in the dark foreground (which is normal, and pretty much as bad as i would expect from digital, not better, not worse)

what do you think? can you point out the differences?

ps: i have more where this came from, let me know if you want to have a look and extend the discussion a bit, i will gladly provide them for mercyless discussion here

edit: the huge problem here is that we are using digital display means to compare "digital" files and silver slides, the problem is that the scan quality can vary wildly, in my experience, whereas the digital medium is, obviously, in a better position, due to less "conversion". so it would be nice to have some more examples, from other people who have quality kodachrome scans (as many people as possible, i would say), it would never replace the breathtaking experience of viewing the slide as it was meant to be viewed, but i can't see much that can be done about fixing that, except maybe do a "pentaxians in memoriam kodachrome meet"

[stevebrot]

what exactly do you mean, peter? i am genuinely interested to understand, i have shot in the mountains, in the winter, on various medium throughout the years (lately digital), never kodachrome, it's true, so i may be missing something. what can you see in the kodachrome image above that sets it apart so clearly from one which might have been shot on digital?

this could turn out to be quite an interesting tribute thread, me thinks

I agree with Peter. I have many digital landscape shots, but they simply don't have the same impact as a good slide of a similar scene.

The problem is that I can't quite put my finger on why would be. I can't say it is dynamic range. Kodachrome is famous for having a short tail in the shadows despite wonderful headroom in the highlights. What's more, the histogram for this scan is pretty much the same as those I get with the K10D.

I think it has more to do with tonality and texture. Border transitions with film (even at the micro level) are simply different than on digital. I have another slide (Fujichrome) of cliffs, meadows, crevassed glacier, and scree. Your typical panoramic high mountain scene taken with a 28mm wide angle. If you pixel peep the 4000 dpi scan from my Coolscan 5000 the film grain is quite obvious and obtrusive. Strangely enough, while the grain is very evident, so is a ton of detail. Much more detail and texture than I would expect from a 100% crop from my K10D. Grass is definitely grass. Scree is definitely scree. You can see footprints and suncups on the glacier and there is some guy is standing on a rock a mile or more in the distance.

Perhaps there are more experienced minds on this forum that can give a better answer?

Steve

(Nice winter scene, by the way...)

[Blue]

That's an good image Nanok. To really compare the 2, you need a scene like that shot with Kodachrome and digital. I'm guessing the snow would be a bit brighter with Kodachrome but its just a guess.

[nanok]

the amount of detail is true of any film i think, the grain is not like pixels in digital world, and it is "a known fact" that a 10mp file, while it can be sharp and smooth, will not contain more detail than a 35mm film frame (i think the general consensus is that you need to go up to about 30mp or so to get in the same ballpark, for detail alone, but then you are not talking equal terms anyway, because the digital version will be grainless, and round it goes. they are just different mediums, i understand that), what i was curious about is what an experienced (and used with slide) photographer can see in such a shot, at such size (so it cannot be detail), to enable him to put his finger on it, pick it out, and say "ha! a scanned kodachrome (or slide of some sort)", i myself have shot a lot of film, but little slide, so i am really intrigued by this (again, i do know viewing a slide properly simply cannot be matched by any digital display today, i won't argue that magic)

border transitions: hmm, sounds interesting but i am not sure if i understand what we are talking about. intriguing enough to make me wait for more info, that's for sure

if you meant my shot: yeah, the scene was nice, but the photographer had one of his worse days unfortunately, as it seems (no composition, no subject, etc: my mountain was ready, but i screwed up.. oh well, maybe this winter..), i only chose it for the "technical" qualities, and the quality of light (which, and this is partly what i am getting at, seems to me is much more important than digital vs film, p&s vs dslr, slide vs negative, and so on, for the final look and feel of such a shot)