To those unfamiliar with Kodachrome

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And the impact that this has on users like myself who has grown up using it for the past 45 years. I strongly recommend sharing in a little history whilst you can.

 

Go into your photo retailer and buy a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 64 35mm Colour Reversal film. Load your camera and set the camera asa setting- or DIN or ISO setting to 80 and expose. Send away for processing and when that magic moment arrived when the postman drops your mounted slides through you letterbox savour a little bit of history as you look at images which are guaranteed 100 years. Now select half a dozen or so of you best slides and send them to you processing house for Cibachrome enlargements then one day you will be able to share them with your grandchildren.

 

If money is no object you could invest in a Leica Pradovit Projector and view your Kodachromes in the dark. The experience could be life changing. This may all sound a little retro but Kodachrome has that effect and be warned it is catching

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Hiles]

Kodachrome printed on Cibacrome is a soul nourishing experience. I feel the way I do when one of my heros dies. HCB, John Kenneth Galbraith, Pierre Elliot Trudeau - the passing of something irreplacable.

[AlanG]

... savour a little bit of history as you look at images which are guaranteed 100 years.

 

Perhaps if stored in the dark with the correct humidity - no mold, no water damage. And handled carefully without scratches, fingerprints, or dirt.

 

E6 films have improved greatly and I believe they hold up better for projection and possibly may give Kodachrome a run for the money in dark storage too.

 

Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) is a very contrasty process that may not be suitable for all images. It is an extremely caustic process due to the dye bleach step. (Dye destruction.) I made my first Cibachrome (transparency print) in 1970 when we beta tested the process as students at RIT. I did a lot of custom Ciba printing in the 70s and 80s but felt it was a very tricky process due to the contrast. (It required a lot of dodging and burning in on most images.)

 

So there are pros and cons. After 39 years of color printing (including owning a custom lab) I much prefer what I can get with a digital camera and my Canon ipf 6100 12 color printer. Modern pigments are pretty durable and much less polluting.

 

I remember when I was learning dye transfer, my instructor, Robert Bagby, would reminisce about how much he liked the Carbro process.

 

Sorry Kodachrome and Ciba but your times have come and gone just as others have. 74 years for the work of "God" and "Man" (as they once called it) ain't so bad.

[J_Thompson]

So there are pros and cons. After 39 years of color printing (including owning a custom lab) I much prefer what I can get with a digital camera and my Canon ipf 6100 12 color printer. Modern pigments are pretty durable and much less polluting.

 

I remember when I was learning dye transfer, my instructor, Robert Bagby, would reminisce about how much he liked the Carbro process.

 

Sorry Kodachrome and Ciba but your times have come and gone just as others have. 74 years for the work of "God" and "Man" (as they once called it) ain't so bad.

 

True words, Alan. Sometimes it's possible to get too nostalgic about nostalgia.

[dfbldwn]

74 years for the work of "God" and "Man" (as they once called it) ain't so bad.

Thanks for this comment, and your other words of sober wisdom.

[kenneth]

Perhaps if stored in the dark with the correct humidity - no mold, no water damage. And handled carefully without scratches, fingerprints, or dirt.

 

E6 films have improved greatly and I believe they hold up better for projection and possibly may give Kodachrome a run for the money in dark storage too.

 

Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) is a very contrasty process that may not be suitable for all images. It is an extremely caustic process due to the dye bleach step. (Dye destruction.) I made my first Cibachrome (transparency print) in 1970 when we beta tested the process as students at RIT. I did a lot of custom Ciba printing in the 70s and 80s but felt it was a very tricky process due to the contrast. (It required a lot of dodging and burning in on most images.)

 

So there are pros and cons. After 39 years of color printing (including owning a custom lab) I much prefer what I can get with a digital camera and my Canon ipf 6100 12 color printer. Modern pigments are pretty durable and much less polluting.

 

I remember when I was learning dye transfer, my instructor, Robert Bagby, would reminisce about how much he liked the Carbro process.

 

Sorry Kodachrome and Ciba but your times have come and gone just as others have. 74 years for the work of "God" and "Man" (as they once called it) ain't so bad.

 

How you can utter the word digital at times like this. Do you not have any feelings?

[jlancasterd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those who decide that they do want to experience Kodachrome whilst there is still time, 7dayshop.com (http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=777) in Guernsey still have stocks of KR64 at prices ranging from £8.45 for one cassette to £7.95 for 10 or more - process paid, of course.

 

My all-time favourite colour film was Kodachrome 200, but that went several years ago...

[KM-25]

True words, Alan. Sometimes it's possible to get too nostalgic about nostalgia.

 

Yes, but lets do the ultimate test shall we? Lets lay down some Ciba prints on Kodachrome by an accomplished photographer like Alex Webb next to ones by Alan from his printer and then see how we feel.

 

I hear a lot of what is better or not but it really does not matter. What *you* the photographer feel about the medium you are working with and what becomes of it are what matter.

[twittle]

My all-time favourite colour film was Kodachrome 200, but that went several years ago...

 

Still got two rolls in the freezer.

[stunsworth]

Lets lay down some Ciba prints on Kodachrome by an accomplished photographer like Alex Webb next to ones by Alan from his printer and then see how we feel...

 

There was a piece on the BBC evening news about the demise of Kodachrome and Alex was one of the people being interviewed. Small world.

[AlanG]

Yes, but lets do the ultimate test shall we? Lets lay down some Ciba prints on Kodachrome by an accomplished photographer like Alex Webb next to ones by Alan from his printer and then see how we feel.

 

I hear a lot of what is better or not but it really does not matter. What *you* the photographer feel about the medium you are working with and what becomes of it are what matter.

 

I printed thousands of Cibachromes. Often for fine art exhibits. I never felt I could control the end result as well as I can now. Yes some of the Cibachrome prints looked extremely good and will work very well for you if they fit your style. So? It can be a beautiful thing. But there are a lot of transparencies that were almost impossible to print on it without the results looking like pop art. Holding the detail and tones of the transparency in a Cibachrome and getting the result that the photographer desired was not always possible for me to accomplish. You may need to get into contrast masking the film and that is a hassle and makes it hard to avoid dust spots. I'm talking about what works for me, maybe not for you or someone else.

 

The digital shooting -> raw -> conversion -> digital printing process lets me cover a range of contrasts, color, looks, and moods that I couldn't do with transparency film and Cibachrome. Perhaps other Ciba printers could do a much better job than I could as we all have limitations. I think some of the labs that now print on Ilfochrome, scan the film and use digital printers in order to avoid masking and have more control.

 

Some of the things that made it difficult for Kodachrome -

 

1. Clients became more in a hurry and E6 could be processed quickly. At one time I bought 40 rolls of Kodachrome 120 size but never shot any as it would take too long for my jobs.

2. Clip tests for exposure - again this has to do with speed, but I could run a clip test quickly and then have the rest of the film processed. This became a pretty standard way for a lot of commercial shooters to work. (And I had a Kodak lab very near by where we could get rushed Kodachrome processing at the time, but it still took too long.)

2.5 - The Kodak labs - they were not always so professional and screwed up some. They were especially bad with night shots, and ruined several of my jobs by cutting in the wrong place. You'd think if they couldn't clearly see the edge of a frame they'd leave it uncut and unmounted. It wasn't as if you could even tell them to run one roll from a group and if that looked good to run the rest. (Pro labs knew what we needed and could judge the film and push or pull if necessary.)

3. E6 film improved and became available in a wide variety from Kodak and Fuji.

4. Velvia 50 - greens and blues popped much more than on Kodachrome. Kodachrome was often better for reds.

5. Stock agencies - my agency said they wanted the popping "Velvia look" as they said that look sold better because they jumped out with more punch from a typical page of slides.

6. Something that bothered me - reciprocity characteristics - I didn't like how it shifted to magenta in long exposures often causing purple skies.

7. Of course digital photography finally killed it.

 

How many of the photographers here will make their own Ilfochrome prints anyway?

[KM-25]

But in terms of Kodachrome, none of this matters anymore.

 

Alan, all that matters is that we, as artists connect with a medium that allows us to bond with it on whatever level we choose.

 

I knew the day Kodachrome would pass was coming over 5 years ago, that is what put me into action.

 

We are all different, if we were not, I doubt art would be able to even exist.

[mmk60]

 

I hear a lot of what is better or not but it really does not matter. What *you* the photographer feel about the medium you are working with and what becomes of it are what matter.

 

 

+1..

[AlanG]

I hear a lot of what is better or not but it really does not matter. What *you* the photographer feel about the medium you are working with and what becomes of it are what matter.

 

Unless you can make your own materials, you are always at the mercy of the manufacturers. Photography is much more about changing technology than some other art forms. A lot of processes have come and gone. I was put off when Kodachrome II was replaced by the new stuff. It never looked the same to me but I shot quite a bit of it any way. Fortunately when T-Max came out, I could still shoot Tri-X and Plus-X.

 

Like digital photography and digital printing, dislike it, or be in the middle... I find it offers much more control, range, and precision than anything else I have used. So in some ways the digital process becomes less imposing on the end result as you can massage it to suit your vision. But maybe that is the problem for some as it does not have the intrinsic characteristics (and limitations) of specific media such as Kodachrome, Ilfochrome, Daguerrotype, etc. And some don't see it as having the same "artistry."

 

For me, I now like the control and lack of limitations over a certain more confined "look." (And this is from someone who only shot 35mm Tri-X processed in D76 for many years.)

 

I guest lectured at a college last night and I had to explain to the students the value of making prints of their images and critiquing them in printed form. Most are only interested in looking at the images on a computer. I brought three different print portfolios of images and a 2x10 foot print to drive home my message.

 

Can William Wegman still shoot 20x24 Polaroids?

[dfbldwn]

My all-time favourite colour film was Kodachrome 200, but that went several years ago...

Amen.

 

The best, creamiest, grain free color I ever saw was the one roll of professional Kodachrome 200 I ran thru a Russian (Ukrainian) medium format Kiev in the early 1990s. Finally I'd found a good color film.

 

I never tried KM25, KR64 was impossibly slow for most applications I shot in. I could not stop buying KL200.

 

For nostalgia, the whole reason I traded in a Nikon FE2 for a new M6 in 1985 was because they only offered Kodachrome in 35mm back then. A year after I'd spent too much for Leica, Kodak began offering Kodachrome in 120. Kodachrome 200 in 35mm lasted longer than the viewfinder in that sorry M6.

 

Stateside, for me, processing deteriorated in the 2nd half of 1990s right up until 2007. Would I get the green with the Magenta cast, or the Magenta one with the green cast? The nadir was when the fool HP945 compact digital gave better color fidelity than a carefully nurtured roll of KL200. That was in 2003.

 

As far as Cibachromes, Houston custom shops were nearly in tears at their failure to maintain detail in highlights with slides that had, at most 3 stops total range (i.e. -1.5 stops to +1.5 stops). I had to tell them they'd exceeded expectations when they got the skin tones right, and I was quite satisfied just to get that.

 

I've enjoyed seeing the old Kodachromes from the 1930s and 1940s over at Shorpy's site, and my remaining rolls of KR64 will go to Dwayne's, not because they're the only source but because they've gotten really good. My last roll from them achieved a quality I hadn't seen since the early 1980s.

 

However, for me it's a relief it won't be around anymore, I can finally concentrate on the image and not the medium. I also won't have to look at woefully underexposed green skin tones again.

 

Doug Herr and that nice fellow from Turkey were the only Kodachrome scanners I thought knew what they were doing on this site. Herr showed a real dedication to Kodachrome, but his R8+DMR won him over, and for all the right reasons.

[kenneth]

But in terms of Kodachrome, none of this matters anymore.

 

Alan, all that matters is that we, as artists connect with a medium that allows us to bond with it on whatever level we choose.

 

I knew the day Kodachrome would pass was coming over 5 years ago, that is what put me into action.

 

We are all different, if we were not, I doubt art would be able to even exist.

 

I could not have put it better myself. Still in mourning but immersed my self in B&W today and shot some pictures of Saltaire Village in West Yorkshire

[leicamr]

In the 1980's I too used to print Cibachromes. I was also frustrated by the dodging and burning required to get a good result. Some images were truly stunning, but the contrast extreme of others made it too difficult to get it right in print. I would highly recommend a Nikon Coolscan LS5000 and have a pro lab print those Kodachrome scans. I am gradually scanning my slides to get them printed. I used Kodachrome a little many years ago, but I am going to buy some for my Dad and myself while the opportunity exists. Any good images I will scan and add to this forum.

 

Mark

[budrichard]

"Go into your photo retailer and buy a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 64 35mm Colour Reversal film. Load your camera and set the camera asa setting- or DIN or ISO setting to 80 and expose"

 

We all know that the manufactures and the correct exposure index is ISO 64.

You are fooling your self that a small adjustment makes any practical difference given the lighting variability of any scene photographed and the accuracy of the exposure meter used. -Dick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Shadow Blaster]

"Go into your photo retailer and buy a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 64 35mm Colour Reversal film. Load your camera and set the camera asa setting- or DIN or ISO setting to 80 and expose"

 

We all know that the manufactures and the correct exposure index is ISO 64.

You are fooling your self that a small adjustment makes any practical difference given the lighting variability of any scene photographed and the accuracy of the exposure meter used. -Dick

 

 

Well, I just started using Kodachrome again after a long interval and can confirm that setting the ISO @ 80 is the way to go. It corrected the slight overexposure that was evident in many slides @ 64. Worth trying @ 80, at the very least. Best regards, John S.