[SI] Special category: Kodachrome

Bowser wrote:
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation
of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held
up. The older the better.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors
over-intensely. I won't miss it. One of the things I like
about digital photography is the ability to control color
rendition.

Marvin wrote:
Bowser wrote:
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome
displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK,
but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it.
Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's
why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s,
and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:13:49 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

Marvin wrote:

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome
displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK,
but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it.
Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's
why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s,
and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

I always preferred the look of K25 to the new stuff, but that's highly
subjective, of course. Never cared for Velvia, or any of the hypersaturated
films. Some of the Kodak Ektachromes weren't too bad, but I always went back
to K25. Of course, shooting at ASA 25 was a real issue. and yes, it was a
money loser.

Can't compete with digital, though.

"John Navas" wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:13:49 -0400, Bowser wrote:

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome
displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK,
but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it.
Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's
why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s,
and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe
switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has
nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better
quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane
contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition
"out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome.

My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and
Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at
Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia
100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has
much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF
characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia
50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But
everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50
after discontinuing it.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 7/2/09 3:18 PM, in article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:


"John Navas" wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:13:49 -0400, Bowser wrote:

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome
displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK,
but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it.
Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's
why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s,
and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe
switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has
nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better
quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane
contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition
"out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome.

My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and
Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at
Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia
100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has
much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF
characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia
50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But
everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50
after discontinuing it.

I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese...

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

There is no one perfect film, Kodachrome included. Velvia is my choice
for some things. Provia or Astia or Kodak Elite would be my choice for
other things. It all depends on what I'm shooting and the kind of
results I want.

Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon,
there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum piece.......$2,000
worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose....

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...
I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese...


That must have been why Herb Cain never shot it either......

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon,
there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum
piece.......$2,000
worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose....

Kodak Gold will probably be all that's left pretty soon. I think that will
last a bit longer.
Better get used to it :-(

MrT.