my last roll of Kodachrome in my M6

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1974 BS from RIT. Junior year at the Polytechnic of Central London. Hollis Todd, Richard Zakia, and Leslie Stroebel were a few of my profs. I've been a commercial photographer for 35 years and also owned a custom photo printing business. At RIT. we used to measure the standard deviation of film speeds, shutter, and aperture accuracy, metering accuracy, reading errors, etc. and graph them. Todd once said with all the variability it is amazing that images turn out so well so often. I took course in statistics for process control.

 

So when Ansel Adams decided to burn in a print to make some parts darker, that wasn't due to personal preference? The same when Gene Smith printed dark and then bleached out highlights by using a brush? Or when someone wants a high key look that is very light overall?

 

The general concept of normal pictorial film photography relies on a characteristic curve that interprets tones rather than "accurate" tonal reproduction. This is why different methods of processing and printing exist.

 

 

Alan,

 

I am almost jealous. And Curious: Why you say there are many different exposure possibilities with such a background as yours is mind boggling.

If you tell me it's a matter of taste, I will agree 100%. But you can't tell me that a hi-Key look is from overexposure. Hi-Key from over-exposure is called over-exposure. Hi-Key is a lighting technique and the resulting image is from an extremely accurate exposure. Same for low-key, which is the result of a Very accurate exposure of a low-Key lighting (We are very far from Apps and NIK filters or whatever other programs here). These are advanced Studio Techniques, which is also the reason why not many people can pretend to shoot for fashion magazines or open their proper studios and make a living from it.

 

Like the Ansel Adams examples. He was shooting for the Zone system, as we know. But even the Zone system was about accurate exposure and its relation to the related Zones. "Guesstimating" the exposure and then correcting it in the darkroom is surely not the Ansel Adams way.

[AlanG]

. "Guesstimating" the exposure and then correcting it in the darkroom is surely not the Ansel Adams way.

 

There is no such thing as an "accurate" exposure. Exposure is simply the total amount of light that falls on the film. The more light, the greater the density (within limits.) The goal in general photography usually is to achieve "pleasing" tonal reproduction. What is pleasing is subjective and we vary the look as part of the creative process.

 

If you are shooting only a grey card and want a print of it that looks exactly like a grey card then your concept of exposure would make sense and could be achieved via a scientific method if all the variables were taken into consideration. Photography is an interpretive process and one thing that makes it great is that there is no standard way of interpreting things. Varying exposure from a "norm" is one method that photographers use.

 

If you imagine a scene on a beach where there is high contrast from direct sunlight and also deep shadows from an umbrella, you could then place a grey card in the sun and another one in the shade. Which card would you meter in order to get the "correct" exposure of both grey cards in one photo? Don't you think that if you get one of them to reproduce as 18% grey, the other will end up too light or too dark?

 

Likewise I could take a person with very dark skin, light for high key and "overexpose" in order to produce a very light look if I want. Or make an albino look dark. What is the right exposure for a night shot? One that makes everything look like it is daytime?

[dicko101]

I hear Kodak have brought out roll film. It's not photosensitive glass plates so I guess it's not really photography.

[adan]

""Guesstimating" the exposure and then correcting it in the darkroom is surely not the Ansel Adams way."

 

Reminds me of the Bill Pierce column in Camera 35 magazine decades ago. He describes a dream in which he is shooting Kodachrome and carefully metering each petal of a flower to find the perfect average exposure. Ansel Adams walks up, watches him work for a minute, and then bends over and whispers in his ear, "Bracket!"

[NB23]

If you imagine a scene on a beach where there is high contrast from direct sunlight and also deep shadows from an umbrella, you could then place a grey card in the sun and another one in the shade. Which card would you meter in order to get the "correct" exposure of both grey cards in one photo? Don't you think that if you get one of them to reproduce as 18% grey, the other will end up too light or too dark?

 

Likewise I could take a person with very dark skin, light for high key and "overexpose" in order to produce a very light look if I want. Or make an albino look dark. What is the right exposure for a night shot? One that makes everything look like it is daytime?

 

The proper exposure is the reading an incident lightmeter will give you when placed at the subject's place. If it's a face under the umbrella you're mentioning above, then it necessarily means that the rest of the image will be overexposed BUT the face (the subject) will be well exposed. The 18% grey has been reached, therefore the film has been well exposed for the subject, which is the whole point.

Yes, I know, the rest of the image will be overexposed in relation to the subject, and this is the subjective part whether it pleases the audience or not. But one can never dispute the fact that the subject wasn't well exposed, the subject being the judgment benchmark for the image as a whole.

 

This conversation brings up the exposure latitude question. In the Umbrella example above, it would be the ability for a given film to retain some information in the overexposed regions, making for a more pleasing image, making it look "less" overexposed in relation to the subject. And let's note the words "overexposed" and "in relation to". I believe I am emphasizing on the "overexposure" while you are emphasizing the "in relation to" part. In the end, I think we are talking about the same thing.

 

And let's not forget that the subject is Kodachrome, not C41 or B&W film, a slide film Finicky to the point of frustration in many cases. It is so finicky that it records tonality and color separation down to 1/32nd of a stop easily. This is the finesse that no other film has. I am not saying that I can control exposure down to 1/32nd of a stop with my Leicas. This would be insane, especially when we know that shutter speeds are not very accurate and are not even consistent from one click to another. With most films these shutter and aperture inaccuracies are not important. But with Kodachrome, a film with such finesse, the difference is there, recorded to full extent. This is why some Kodachrome images jump out of the light table as if it was illuminated by God and some others are bland and maybe unworthy of what we saw while shooting. When this happens, many people chalk it up to "I knew I should have used Velvia" but the truth is that it simply wasn't exposed as it should have, either from a bad reading, a bad understanding of the light, and inaccurate shutter and aperture making for a 1/4 stop difference. This, for Kodachrome, is a lot.

 

I digressed...

[andybarton]

And I admit to be amazed by your question. Any comon sense on films and cameras and their interaction answers your question.

 

Thanks for your help...

 

 

As a 40-year newbie in this game, I'd be interested to know how do you get your shutters and apertures adjusted so accurately?

 

I call "bs" on this one.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The proper exposure is the reading an incident lightmeter will give you when placed at the subject's place. If it's a face under the umbrella you're mentioning above, then it necessarily means that the rest of the image will be overexposed BUT the face (the subject) will be well exposed. .

 

You are confusing a reference point with a requirement. Metering for 18% gray is a reference that the photographer then has to interpret in order to depict the subject in the way he/she envisions. This may be somewhat lighter or darker.

 

The view you express of "proper" exposure is very simplistic and would imply that there is only one "correct" way to expose a given subject in a given situation.

[NB23]

Thanks for your help...

 

 

As a 40-year newbie in this game, I'd be interested to know how do you get your shutters and apertures adjusted so accurately?

 

I call "bs" on this one.

 

I said that Kodachrome is so sensitive, and it has such finesse, that it does indeed record subtle tonality and color changes beyond the regular 1/4 of a stop that we usually run into when shooting slide film.

 

I never said that I control my exposures so accurately. Did I?

But when such an exposure is achieved, such accuracy by Luck, Kodachrome images simply shine as it was lit by the light of God. This is why it is Legendary: for its unrivaled colors and tones. Always under the condition that it is extremely well exposed.

 

Now, how does one achieve such perfect exposure? By luck. Just as simple as that, here's the explanation:

The Camera's reading of light is never 100% accurate.

The Camera' s shutter can never be as accurate as it's supposed to be (1/60th can in fact be 1/69th. And from one shutter actuation to another we can experience variations of as much as 10%, and 1/80th shutter speed is not rare).

Also, the lens' aperture at f5.6 is not exactly f5.6 depending on the direction you took to set it at f5.6. From wide open to f5.6 is not exactly the same as from f16 to f5.6 as there are some mechanical variations. And if you're using Voigtlander lenses let's say, the f5.6 mark might as well be f6.3 in reality. Also, how can we be sure that the F stops are exactly equal to T stops? With Leica lenses it's more probable, but in general with other manufacturers? Are the manufacturing tolerances as tight as we expect them to be? Absolutely not.

 

So now there you are, aiming your M6 loaded with Kodachrome 64 on a Cat on the sidewalk. Your camera's average metering system tells you f5,6@1/60 is what it takes to properly expose the cat. So you click.

But what you did, in fact, is shoot the cat at 1/80@f5.9 because that's how your camera and lens work.

This, in real life, and with any given film, is accurate enough, well within the 1/4 or 1/3 stop tolerance to properly expose any Slide film. The Kodachrome image indeed looks fine, but maybe a tad bluish and a little flat. In other words, this is not the *Legendary* colors and Pop one should get from Kodachrome film, according to all the literature, but still, it is an acceptable image.

So what really happened? The explanation is simple: While you thought you exposed the film well, well, you didn't. First of all, the scene really required an exposure of 1/40th@f5.6 (often a difference uncovered by the use of an incident meter versus an error prone reflected meter). And to shoot at an effective 1/40th@f5.6 you will maybe have to set your particular M6 and lens to f3.8 and shoot at 1/30th.

So in reality we are VERY far from the original camera settings you shot the Cat with. And this explains why your Kodachrome image does not resemble what a Kodachrome is supposed to look like, according to all the 'hype".

 

A Kodachrome image will always look OK if exposed within half a stop, but its sensitivity goes beyond the usual Quarter stop limit we are all used to. But exposing a Kodachrome to perfection is a matter of Luck, depending on many variables working together.

While exposing a Sensia film within a 1/4 stop will show no real difference, a Kodachrome definitely will: Some colors, shades and tones will simply appear or disappear, depending on the direction of the exposure.

 

As a 40-year newbie, Andy, I'd expect you should know that. It's anything but "BS", sorry to disappoint.

 

[NB23]

You are confusing a reference point with a requirement. Metering for 18% gray is a reference that the photographer then has to interpret in order to depict the subject in the way he/she envisions. This may be somewhat lighter or darker.

 

The view you express of "proper" exposure is very simplistic and would imply that there is only one "correct" way to expose a given subject in a given situation.

 

I understand where you're going. Shooting a Black man in the sun necessarily requires an underexposure Versus the reflected reading while it doesn't necessitate any kind of exposure correction if metered incidentally.

But In these two cases, it still boils down to one same combination of aperture/f-stop.

 

If you shoot the scene at f5.6@1/60 and I shoot it at f4@1/60th, one of us will be wrong. I can't fathom why you don't agree with this.

[andybarton]

When the exposure is nailed, and I mean nailed down to 1/32nd of a stop (as opposed to the regular 1/4 we're used to with other slide film).

 

The BS is that you were suggesting that you could expose to within 1/32 of a stop which is just nonsense.

 

Basically what you are saying is that exposing Kodachrome is actually just pot-luck. If your camera doesn't just happen to expose at exactly that 1/32 stoop value, then forget it.

 

Fair enough - but that's hardly a way to create a sustainable product, where people will be disappointed in the results 31/32 times...

 

I agree with you that incident metering is a much better way of working that reflected, but that's maybe a different discussion and one that most people these days wouldn't even consider.

[NB23]

The BS is that you were suggesting that you could expose to within 1/32 of a stop which is just nonsense.

 

Basically what you are saying is that exposing Kodachrome is actually just pot-luck. If your camera doesn't just happen to expose at exactly that 1/32 stoop value, then forget it.

 

Fair enough - but that's hardly a way to create a sustainable product, where people will be disappointed in the results 31/32 times...

 

That's extremely simplistic, but I'll give it to you if you insist. I see we are starting to agree.

Nobody will be disappointed in a Kodachrome exposed within a 1/2 stop. I accept my Kodachromes as they come. But when I see a Kodachrome that clearly Jumps out from the rest, I know it was exposed to its full potential. This doesn't happen very often at all in my case, maybe 1 in 100. But when it happens, when I see that slide, it's a great reward.

It rarely happens in my case, too rarely maybe. But when it does, it really justifies the 100's (more like thousands) of Dollars I plunked in the film.

 

Yes, Kodachrome is that finicky.

[zlatkob]

Fortunately, Ansel Adams was a great writer about the Ansel Adams way. He explained that the Zone System was a method for achieving the artist's visualization of the print -- not a means for achieving the one technically perfect exposure. In his book The Negative, he was very clear about this:

 

"Throughout this series, visualization is the underlying objective; the craft and technical aspects, while important in themselves, should always be subservient to the expressive concepts of the photographer ...."

 

"Our purpose in this volume is to consider the visualization of the image values, and to describe appropriate procedures that make it possible to secure the optimum negative for the print as we visualize it."

 

Chapter One of The Negative is titled "Visualization and Image Values" -- emphasizing the importance of visualization, which he describes as "a creative and subjective approach to photography".

 

"It is impossible for a photographic print to duplicate the range of brightnesses (luminences) of most subjects, and thus photographs are to some degree interpretations of the original subject values."

 

"My work, for example, is frequently regarded as 'realistic,' while in fact the value relationships within most of my photographs are far from a literal transcription of reality."

[giordano]

I call "bs" on this one.

 

Me too.

 

One stop is a 100% difference in exposure; 1/32nd stop is approximately a 2.1897 percent difference. If the dynamic range of Kodachrome is six to eight stops, that's 192 to 256 steps on a grey scale. So if one was given eight Kodachromes of a real scene that were identical apart from 1/32 stop differences in exposure it just might be possible to arrange them reliably in order of density.

 

But if one presented the same eight Kodachromes one at a time in random order and asked people to say which of them was most perfectly exposed, I don't reckon even Ned "Densitometer Eyes" Bojic could pick the same one five times running.

[Stealth3kpl]

No.

or making regular old people on the streets look like their directly out of an Afghanistan bombing nightmare.

 

Pete

[Fernmelder]

A pitty and another sign for the end of an era is that the guys from the LFI magazine did not quote the correct url of Bojic's website, giving the provider only.

[dicko101]

A pitty and another sign for the end of an era is that the guys from the LFI magazine did not quote the correct url of Bojic's website, giving the provider only.

 

I enjoyed the issue and the images however I feel a more comprehensive retrospective of Kodachrome, its famous images and capabilities and its history with Leica is called for a la Kodachrome: The American Invention of Our World

[NB23]

Me too.

 

One stop is a 100% difference in exposure; 1/32nd stop is approximately a 2.1897 percent difference. If the dynamic range of Kodachrome is six to eight stops, that's 192 to 256 steps on a grey scale. So if one was given eight Kodachromes of a real scene that were identical apart from 1/32 stop differences in exposure it just might be possible to arrange them reliably in order of density.

 

But if one presented the same eight Kodachromes one at a time in random order and asked people to say which of them was most perfectly exposed, I don't reckon even Ned "Densitometer Eyes" Bojic could pick the same one five times running.

 

I absolutely agree it might sound funny but let's not forget the general idea behind this. Believe me, Kodachrome has far more tonal sensitivity then any other e-6 film. Kodachrome is not legendary without reasons, and when it's properly exposed, it shines. And as opposed to other E-6 films, properly exposing a Kodachrome is not in 1/4 stop terms.

[JBA]

If the dynamic range of Kodachrome is six to eight stops . . .

 

Which, in my rather long experience with the film, it is. The assertion that Kodachrome is finicky is sheer nonsense. Velvia 50 is finicky. Kodachrome is extremely forgiving, which is just one of the qualities that made it the most commercially successful film in history.

 

Still have 50+ rolls of 25 and 64, which should take me right to the end with lots of great images to show for it.

[NB23]

Which, in my rather long experience with the film, it is. The assertion that Kodachrome is finicky is sheer nonsense. Velvia 50 is finicky. Kodachrome is extremely forgiving, which is just one of the qualities that made it the most commercially successful film in history.

 

Still have 50+ rolls of 25 and 64, which should take me right to the end with lots of great images to show for it.

 

 

As I wrote in the many posts above, Kodachrome has its own unique look and is acceptable even if not properly exposed. But it will have color shifts.

I also said that it has an extremely long tonal and color sensitivity when compared to other E-6 films. I guess this can be translated as "extremely forgiving" to some extent. I would not go that far since we know what is extremely forgiving. Kodak Gold 400 being one of them, forgiving films.

And finicky it is. Even though a 1/4 exposure variation is acceptable as "Exposure accuracy" for many films, including Velvia, Kodachrome will continue giving and giving well below that quarter stop. That is my definition of finicky. If you prefer to call this "forgiveness", then I guess we're talking the same.

 

It has also been widely reported that Kodachrome doesn't behave well with strobes. The answer to this is simple: The color shift caused by the temperature of the Flash goes beyond Kodachrome's threshold. I can't call this "extremely forgiving", I am sorry.

 

But I have been repeating myself on and on.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JBA]

Main Entry: fin·icky

Pronunciation: \ˈfi-ni-kē\

Function: adjective

Etymology: alteration of finicking

Date: circa 1825

1 : extremely or excessively particular, exacting, or meticulous in taste or standards <a finicky eater>

2 : requiring much care, precision, or attentive effort <a finicky recipe>

 

You can't really redifine words to mean their opposite. Kodachrome is one of the least finicky films I've ever used, aside from Tri-X.

 

Also, saying "compared to other E-6 films" is to suggest that Kodachrome is also an E-6 film. It is not. It's K-14, which is an entirely different process.

 

Anyhow, not going to go round and round with you on this.