Rona!d Posted June 25, 2012 Share #21 Posted June 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If your main aim in life — your photographic life — is to "truly judge your Leica lenses" you can tell yourself all the lies that you want. Other people just move on and make photographs even with Leica lenses as in this thread another version of which is called "You Can Stop Missing Kodachrome Now". Please share your secret, how you make a stupid 0-1-0-1 digital photo look like a projected Kodachrome silde on the wall! I tested some very expensive beamers, non did show me a "Kodachrome mood". Film is like a live opera while digital is a modern "studio recording" with just emulating moods. I miss Kodachrome, although it was not perfect and although I´m not completely unhappy with the (job) advantages digital photography offers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Hi Rona!d, Take a look here I miss Kodachrome. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rona!d Posted June 25, 2012 Share #22 Posted June 25, 2012 ps Projecting Kodachromes several hundred times was another "quality" issue - unfortunately;) pps Making a photograph on Kodachrome doesn´t automatically make it a good picture, but we have the same with digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted June 25, 2012 Share #23 Posted June 25, 2012 I was looking at some of last year's slides shot on Kodachrome 64. I sure miss that film. Does anyone else wish it was still being made? Sad. Well of course..but look at the company...Kodak/ shoot myself in the foot" management.....the decline and demise began way before the dawn of digital through a series of exceedingly poor management decisions over a span of 25 years..ie 1982 to 2007. I am surprised anything Kodak exists at all. I think if someone were to pick up the ball it would be Fuji, making some FujiChrome Vintage Kodachrome is the absolute pinnacle of colour film..and no digital has come even close to that, maybe in 10 years. Fuji has been toying with the idea of a physical light sensitive emulsion/ digital product for years, but it has never popped out of their labs, guess its just to complicated and expensive. Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted June 25, 2012 Share #24 Posted June 25, 2012 If your main aim in life — your photographic life — is to "truly judge your Leica lenses" you can tell yourself all the lies that you want. Other people just move on and make photographs even with Leica lenses as in this thread another version of which is called "You Can Stop Missing Kodachrome Now". —Mitch/Singapore Pak Nam Pran: From Fishing Village to... My old VW camper has never been the same since they stopped selling 4 Star (yes it has a head conversion). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted June 25, 2012 Share #25 Posted June 25, 2012 What's today's standard? M9M and lightroom? M9P and photoshop? Pathetic, IMO. Truth is, I couldn't afford to use Kodachrome when I was shooting slides. I used Fujichrome 100 and Orwo DIN 21, and 'do you have any outdated rolls for less, please?' Mostly it was HP4 and FP3, developed in Paterson chemicals at home. So I can't honestly say I miss it, but I wouldn't damn those who fancy trying out an M9M because you do miss it. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Chris Pathetic and proud of it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stack62 Posted June 26, 2012 Share #26 Posted June 26, 2012 Just for fun.....here's one on Kodachrome and one on original Velvia (RVP). Both with Nikon FE-2 and old 105mm f/2.5 Non Ai Nikkor-P. Both are straight scans with Nikon 5000 ED Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182424-i-miss-kodachrome/?do=findComment&comment=2048894'>More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 26, 2012 Share #27 Posted June 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello stack62, Welcome to the Forum. I would say #2 is the Kodachrome because the colors are different w/o regard to which is better or worse. Both photos are nice. Hello Brian, Some people give more than just lip service. Some people actually do change their lives & some even actually do something to make the World a better place. BTW: I agree w/ you about Andy. Best Regards All, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted June 26, 2012 Share #28 Posted June 26, 2012 I for one miss Kodachrome 64 slide film not from a 1970s experience but from a current one. I do a lot of outdoor photography, in the mountains, in an alpine setting (climbing, ski touring) and although I have digital and have used other films (Velvia 50 for example), none of them have the qualities that K64 did. It was always predictable, that was one of its best qualities. I have an M9, and love the sensor in it. But I liked K64 because I didn't have to fiddle with white balance or different algorithms. The colours were always rich, dark blacks, no heavy blue/green (like Ektachrome for e.g..). I don't feel bad for missing it. It was a good product that performed exactly as intended. Whether someone thinks there's a digital aspect that is better or just as good is a completely moot point, as these things always are. Everyone needs to remember that the love of a product that was good but is no longer made isn't always 'nostalgia' or 'not getting with the times'. It's not as though K64 was complicated for users like wet collodion or something - just load the film up same as everything else - and digital hasn't somehow miraculously liberated us from all the supposed limitations that good film had. And I always love how people say these days "I don't miss film because I don't like all those hours in the darkroom or in front of the slide table/light box...". Yet without exception, most of us spend equal if not more hours sitting in front of the computer, processing, tweaking, sorting, backing up, etc. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted June 26, 2012 Share #29 Posted June 26, 2012 I saw some Eve Arnold photos of Marilyn Monroe on the set of the Misfits. I always thought they were Kodachrome. The evening light was perfect. Photojournalist Eve Arnold dies at 99 - msnbc.com Entertainment Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewittehd Posted June 26, 2012 Share #30 Posted June 26, 2012 You're not the only one who misses Kodachrome. I think we can lay the blame for Kodachrome's demise - as well as Ilfochrome media's loss -squarely at the feet of the digital "revolution." Digging deeper into this postmortem, at the root of the loss of these irreplaceable materials we find the willingness of the masses to trade quality for speed and the entertainment of what is in essence video game photography and printmaking. I seriously doubt that "the masses" ever used either Kodachrome and Ilfochrome. Ilfo lost out on a cost issue. I remember that even back in the 70ties it never really caught on, except for a chosen few with sufficient backing. Even the mighty Ciba-Geigy couldn't shoulder the expenses. As for Kodak, a combination of mismanagement and the loss of the user-base who went digital. Just my 2 cents. Jean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 26, 2012 Share #31 Posted June 26, 2012 I seriously doubt that "the masses" ever used either Kodachrome and Ilfochrome. I guess it depends upon what you call "the masses" but I think you are wrong about Kodachrome. It was certainly the film of choice for anyone who dared to bore family or friends with a sideshow of holiday photos. Both my father and grandfather (judging by the box of old slides in the attic) used the stuff as their film of choice and neither was remotely what you would call a serious photographer – just a couple of holiday snappers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewittehd Posted June 26, 2012 Share #32 Posted June 26, 2012 I guess it depends upon what you call "the masses" but I think you are wrong about Kodachrome. It was certainly the film of choice for anyone who dared to bore family or friends with a sideshow of holiday photos. Both my father and grandfather (judging by the box of old slides in the attic) used the stuff as their film of choice and neither was remotely what you would call a serious photographer – just a couple of holiday snappers. I think this side of the Channel Agfa had a more than fair share. Jean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 26, 2012 Share #33 Posted June 26, 2012 The evening light was perfect. Yes, there is something particularly nice about Kodachrome and how it renders evening light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 26, 2012 Share #34 Posted June 26, 2012 I think this side of the Channel Agfa had a more than fair share.Jean Yes, I'm sure there were strong regional differences. Kodak had a factory in the UK (Watford?) and a very strong marketing presence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 26, 2012 Share #35 Posted June 26, 2012 I shot B&W neg (Kodak 32 ASA Panatomic X for who remember it and Tri-X), and Kodachrome 64 almost exclusively (always hated Ektachrome and the lurid Fujichromes of those times) for well over 20 years through the early 70s to the mid 90s, when I changed to almost exclusively B&W. Amateur photography only. I look back at those Kodachromes (which haven't faded a bit) with the same nostalgia that I do my old B&Ws. Those rich (not accurate) colours take us back to a certain time almost date-stamped by that "Kodachrome look", including those Life Magzine & National Geographic 'pinnacles' (I use the word loosely) of 1960s-70s photography. I remember when I bought my first Leica (slide projector) with a glorious 2.5/90 Colorplan-P2 lens to replace my old Hanimex & Kodak slide projectors - what a revelation it was to see my slides projected with that lens. I also miss family slide nights - although I'm not sure they do:rolleyes: So, I too miss Kodachrome but more because of nostalgia than because I necessarily want to use it again.... ...time to get out the slide projector and make the family suffer:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewittehd Posted June 26, 2012 Share #36 Posted June 26, 2012 Yes, I'm sure there were strong regional differences. Kodak had a factory in the UK (Watford?) and a very strong marketing presence. Yup, Agfa had the main factory in Germany and the Gevaert Factory in Antwerp. Also, a lot of people liked the cold-blue rendering of Agfa. It took me quite an effort to convert to Fuji. Jean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted June 26, 2012 Share #37 Posted June 26, 2012 Kodachrome was also by far the film for the 1950s stereo photography fad using cameras like the Stereo Realist, Revere Stereo, or Kodak Stereo. In order to get two images at normal eye spacing the vertical format frames ended up slightly larger than half-frame size, and they were normally viewed with a binocular viewer that had high magnification. As a result E6 process films showed unacceptable grain, so nearly everyone used Kodachrome (or later Kodachrome II). My dad used his Stereo Realist from 1950 until he died in 2002, and always used Kodachrome - ending up with Kodachrome 64 although he much preferred Kodachrome II (25 ASA). Last month I was going through his slide library to find some from our vacation in 1961, and his camera was packed with the slides. Yup: still had a half-used roll of Kodachrome 64 in it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted June 26, 2012 Share #38 Posted June 26, 2012 I've been trying to emmulate the saturated look of Meyerowitz. Did he use Kodachrome? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted June 26, 2012 Share #39 Posted June 26, 2012 He probably did what pleased him and only himself. Maybe all luck. Why emulate? Why not go for your own look? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted June 26, 2012 Share #40 Posted June 26, 2012 I grew up with Kodachrome...my grandfather used it, my father used it, and so it was natural in the late 1950s-70s that I would use it. I tried many of the other slide films, but Kodachrome always won out for consistently good results. Then the projector fell into disuse...my family turned up their noses at slide shows, so I moved on to negative color films, of course keeping up my B&Ws. Last week I pulled up a bunch of couple of trays of slides from the 1940s-70s (most of the rest had been destroyed in a flood in the 1980s). Pure nostalgia....they were beautiful, unlike the often faded prints from negative films of the same era. These days I am more often than not, using digital media, which I think compares pretty favorably with scanned Kodachrome slides. I did a lecture last year, in which I needed slides because digital projection gear was unavailable...the group paid for me to convert about 50 digital images to slides...I was surprised, as the colors really came close to imitating Kodachrome, and in fact, several in the audience asked if I had used Kodachrome. I miss it, but time moves on, IMHO there are worthy alternatives to explore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.