[nanok]

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.

it would be a hell of a lot brighter with anything: it's not the camera, it's me (known to have a tendency towards the "dark side" (of the histogram, ofcourse), and my way-too-birght lcd monitor), let me have something to eat, and unless i fall asleep, i will try to dig the raw out and process it reasonably , but the point is that the light is obviously contrasty (it was shortly after sunrise, you can see what such an angle can do to the snow, and how it brings out all sorts of textures and contrasts everywhere), but still the detail is there, all the way, in the sky, snow, and the tonal gradations are still quite smooth. as i said before, in my experience, the dynamic range needed for such a scene is often overestimated, it's not small, but there's much worse than that.

ps: hell, you know what? i am willing to get some slide (even if not kodachrome) and carry it up together with a k-mount film body, when i go there this winter, and try to test the theory. i won't promise though, i am scared if i see the results (comparing on digital monitor with viewing a "real" slide), i might start shooting slide, and we don't want that, do we?..

btw: find those slide cabinets and show us some stuff, we need more examples to figure this one out. don't be lazy

---

Last edited by nanok; 06-23-2009 at 01:37 PM.

[stevebrot]

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

I will have to do a few 100% crops of some high res scans and post them in a new thread. It is hard to explain, but maybe it enough to say that there are border effects both at time of exposure and at time of development that determine the size and shape of the silver grains as well as the behavior of adjacent grains. It is easier to see than to explain.

Steve

[Volvo244T]

Kodachrome is still the only archival colour film.

Archival, and that's it. For being an ISO64 film, it's grainier than *any* modern 100-speed emulsion I've used - and it's not worth shit for scanning. Hell, I prefer Provia 400X over KR64 because it's not quite as grainy yet is much, much faster, making it better overall for what I do (generally aviation, though I haven't been out to the airport in years to shoot)

That said, a small part of me died when I read this. Yet another thing from my childhood gone.

Oh, and not to mention - it was well ahead of its time.

[stevebrot]

...but the point is that the light is obviously contrasty (it was shortly after sunrise, you can see what such an angle can do to the snow, and how it brings out all sorts of textures and contrasts everywhere), but still the detail is there, all the way, in the sky, snow, and the tonal gradations are still quite smooth. as i said before, in my experience, the dynamic range needed for such a scene is often overestimated, it's not small, but there's much worse than that...

The better test is when the texture and detail are not quite so stark. Think flakes of new snow on the cusp of a drift or hoarfrost on ice in dull light. With digital, this sort of thing tends to go sort of muddly. The classic test is a simple green grass lawn. The texture is there with film and sort of there with digital.

Steve

(Done hijacking this thread...)

[nanok]

I will have to do a few 100% crops of some high res scans and post them in a new thread. It is hard to explain, but maybe it enough to say that there are border effects both at time of exposure and at time of development that determine the size and shape of the silver grains as well as the behavior of adjacent grains. It is easier to see than to explain.

Steve

i think i understand that to some extent. i used to do my own b&w processing, and mix my own juices for that, and, needless to say, i spent countless sleepless nights reading about it and trying to understand how it goes (i did not get to the point of designing my own reciepes, thankfully, i found a phenidon-based one which seemed perfect for me, perhaps that's what saved me ). what i am not sure about is how it would affect the general look of the image, especially when downsized. i have seen similar discussions, and there seems to be an intuition some people have about even larger formats looking different, even when downsized well bellow the common denominator, when comparing to smaller formats, there's also talk of microcontrast, and the like, but nothing definitive. on the other hand, one of the funniest articles on luminous landscape is the one about the blind test between the canon g10 and a phase one (if i recall correctly) digital back (medium format), from that article, i am inclined to believe the talk of "i can see the difference, microcontrast" and so on is a lot of placebo and wishful thinking, but who knows, maybe it is not (i still think it's worth discussing)

btw, i don't think this is hijacking, i think it's a nice tribute to kodachrome (if a bit authopsy-like in nature). what do you think, weathfield, as a thread starter , do you, sir, find any value whatsoever in the present discussion? or should we pack our toys and move the racket to our own thread?

edit: for whomever might have missed it, a fun read, to say the least:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

[drewdlephone]

Every time we got Kodachrome in at work, one fellow came by and bought all the rolls he could get his mitts on. I never did get a roll of my own before we stopped carrying it, and now I suppose I won't ever get to play with it.

It's very interesting that, through all this, nobody has touched on the environmental impact Kodakchrome had. The K14 process was a much needed improvement to the K12 chemistry, but it's still one of the most volatile chemical processes done today. One of the reasons K14 labs began to disappear in the 1990s was the much more stringent waste management guidelines imposed on processing labs. This combined with the cost of the process in general (it's a very involved process that involves developing each layer of the film separately in different chemistries), and the reduced usage due to improved E6 films, and the writing was on the wall 10 years ago.

That doesn't detract from it's history, however. Nobody has developed a color formula to age as well as Kodachrome does; I have scanned slides at my work that are 60 years old and still retain their original colors almost perfectly.

[24X36NOW]

MY Kodachrome was K200, so I lost it a while back. 64 (or 25) was just too damn slow for me, since I prefer zooms and I shoot things that actually move more often than not. I tried Fuji Provia 400X and that's what I'll stick with for slide shooting. I'll just have to digitize sooner to make up for the "non-archival" nature of the E6 film

Kodak should be ashamed of themselves, since they basically killed Kodachrome by making it more and more difficult to get it processed. Maybe the waste issues forced their hand to some extent, but it seemed like they made no effort to deal with it, just closed down more and more processing locations until Dwayne's was all that was left.

I would like to see someone pursue the concept of Kodachrome again, albeit with more environmentally friendly chemistry. Basically, Kodachrome was a black and white film to which the color dyes were added during processing, which meant that the color dyes weren't in the film. This is why Kodachrome wasn't so sensitive to storage and handling as are E6 films. I shot rolls WAY past their expiration date and got perfect slides, which is highly unlikely with any E6 film.

[lesmore49]

I wonder how Kodak is doing? At one time they were an important firm...in my photography. Usually used nothing but Kodak film. But since the digital age is upon us, i don't even think about Kodak products. Too bad as they were 'the' photography company almost from the beginning.

[Ratmagiclady]

Kodak's not looking to be in particular trouble or anything like that, lots of irons in the fire... The writing's been on the wall for a while, now, for Kodachrome, though.

[GeneV]

For 20 years or more, K25 was my film of choice for any inanimate subject. There's nothing like it in sharpness, grain or color--especially with a fine Pentax prime. No digital sensor to date comes close. And, yes, it lasts. Too bad. It's just another sign of the end of the film era.

[ChrisPlatt]

Never a beginner's film, one had to master exposure before "graduating" to Kodachrome.
Sadly photographers will never again experience this "rite of passage".

Chris

[gofour3]

Never a beginner's film, one had to master exposure before "graduating" to Kodachrome.
Sadly photographers will never again experience this "rite of passage".

Chris

Amen, this is so true!!

[artobest]

Here's one from years ago on Kodachrome 64. Typically insane colour! Taken with an ME Super and unknown lens.

[Peter Zack]

well whatever the lens was the background is excellent. Great image

[fs999]

I never used a Kodak film.

Ok, one or two to try...

But I was in the same, or more depressive, situation when Agfa stopped the image department.

I was so disappointed that I stopped shooting film. And four years later I rediscovered my film camera when I began shooting digital with my K10D and decided to restart my lab and invest in Pentax cameras. Now I am using Velvia, Astia, Provia... AND expired Agfachromes !

Don't make the same mistake and try other films, you will surely find a film which will please you.

Good luck !