Kodachrome

As you all know, Kodachrome is soon to be no more. Kodak stopped making it a little while back, and will stop accepting pre-paid films for developing at the end of November. I have been trying to use up the last of my rolls.

Here are a few images. If anyone wants to post some more, feel free.










K.

The last one is a goodie Kris - do you see the Kodak thing as 'the end of an era'?

The 3rd one really hit home how good (actually how bad) the colours were on Kodachrome Brings back memories of when I used to do slides.

I wouldn't take my dodgy scanning as any indication of the quality of Kodachrome colours. I have been scanning some 25 year old slides. The Fuji ones, lovely at the time, have faded to a dull muddy brown, the Kodachrome ones are still good.

K.

Kodachrome retains its colour very well, as long as it's stored in the dark. When projected, Kodachrome fades faster than E-6 films do.

The reason I stopped using K200 is that the processing quality was not as good as it should have been - Kodak progressively let it slip. Deliberately? Who knows, but the magenta cast was rather unpleasant.

I never used the K200, only K25 and K64 and never noticed a cast on those. All my slides are stored in archival quality hanging files although I need to buy some more as I have run out.

After I have finished my current batch of films, I probably won't shoot 35mm slides again, but I probably will continue to use Fuji films on medium format and 5x4. The biggest problem is that the scans of the MF films just do not do the original slides justice.

K.

That's a lovely Poppy shot, Kris!

I like the last one as well, Kris. A fitting epitaph.

Here are four more from a roll which arrived this morning. All taken using my MX.

Benches, Riverside Park, New York. (SMC K 24mm lens)



Grant's Tomb, NYC (SMC K 15mm lens)



Bethesda Fountain, Central Park, NYC (SMC-A 28mm lens, polariser)



Rosehips in my garden. Not sure about the lens, M series 50 or 100mm.



Best wishes, Kris.

The trouble is that none of these can convey the real qualities of Kodachrome as the structure of the film makes it rather unsuitable for scanning. For this reason the Nikon scanners actually have a Kodachrome saetting, plus a Colour Transparency setting for Ektachrome-style films.

Professional scanning for magazine reproduction and projection are the strengths of Kodachrome. With a Leica or Kodak slide projector we could appreciate the quality of your slides.

The Vuescan software does have a Kodachrome setting but as you say, my Minolta Scan Dual III doesn't really do them justice. Whatever the film, the scans are never as sharp as the originals (having stared at them under a loupe to check!). It has been suggested I'll get better scans if I glass mounted them which I may well try with some of the better images.

Even worse is trying to get decent scans of medium format Fuji Velvia. The scans look flat and lifeless compared to the original transparencies. As much as I am looking forward to getting some of my 5x4 transparencies back, I fear the problem will be even worse!

Best wishes, Kris.

Professional drum scanners that stick the transparency flat with oil are the best, but I couldn't even guess the cost. I suspect not even magazines do this routinelyt any more, apart maybe for the very highest quality glossies.

I actually like the fact the colours aren't correct. The colours on the rosehips and poppy pics are great.

I often PP pics in Color Efex Pro to mess up the colours like this on purpose

Nail on the head Kris.

I use Gepe glass mounts, even for individual negs. Emulsion must be flat and it never is in the standard carriers. Although you can alter focus etc, it's waisted unless the emulsion is flat.

I still use the Scan Dual IV.

Best regards

35mm film was never flat in enlargers either.... nobody seemed bothered. I used to use a 6x6 carrier and sandwich the 35mm negs between two sheets of thin optical glass.

I thought Vivitar had solved it when they brought out the enlarger equivalent of a Dyson known as the light-pipe because it sent the diffused light down a fibre optic pipe and had a lot of design improvements. The negative carrier unfortunately was just plastic and it held the negative just like a Kodachrome card mount