What is your opinion of Kodachrome is this day and age? Does it still have advantages over E6 that warrant its disadvantages such as quicker fading and less widely available processing? There seem to be a lot of folks that swear by it- I just started exposing my first role- ironically Kodachrome 25 right as it is being phased out of production. Please comment.

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), November 02, 2001

Answers

I don't have much experience with the Kodachrome series, but it seems like a majority of the really cool macro shots I've seen lately in print are made with Kodachrome 25 or 64. I would use more if my local pro lab could process it.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), November 02, 2001.

I used to use K'chrome more or less exclusively up through about 1985. I could get one day processing turnaround when I lived in downstate Illinois (via camera shop) and in Chicago when Kodak had a lab there. (and also through Berkey for a while after they won their antitrust lawsuit against Kodak.)

I started switching to Fuji once I moved to places where processing was only available through the mail. At that time it was one week - the last time I tried it (a year ago) it took 2-3 weeks from Denver (not exactly Podunk!) through the west coast lab.

With mail irradiation on the horizon, who knows if it can survive?

The one very big plus for Kodachrome is longevity - I have some of my mother's Kodachromes from 1967-68 that look like they were shot yesterday. The dupe slides we purchased at some tourist sites those years (probably on E-3 film) have lost all their cyan dye, even in dark storage. Kodachrome's dyes are added during the development process rather than being built-in during manufacture, which allows for more stable compounds to be used.

Some folks think it has slightly better acutance (edge sharpness) than even the best E-6 films, but I think Velvia is right in the ballpark.

Purely based on images, I prefer Velvia. Kodachrome (at least as currently processed) picks up a muddy purple-brown quality in the shadows/low midtones that I just don't like personally, and tends to blow out clouds and other highlights a bit more. Velvia holds the highlights but blocks up shadows more. Hence people's tendency to rate V at 40 and K64 at 80.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 02, 2001.

It's certainly an old habit for me. I like the dark-storage longevity, fine grain, edge acutance and neutral color rendition.

I don't see the muddy shadows others have mentioned, as long as I'm using Leica glass. My own K-chromes from the 1960s and 1970s are still in good shape while my Fujichromes from the same time period have faded. Maybe Velvia starts out with such vivid colors so it will look OK in a couple decades.

I can't get used to the excessive color saturation of Velvia (and E100VS). It's as though these films were designed to compensate for the poor color rendition of consumer zooms. Yecch.

As much as I like K-chrome, irradiation of the mail has me looking at other films. I'm using Provia 100F for the first time later today.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), November 03, 2001.

Kodachrome "quicker fading"? Do you mean that KR & co. fade faster than E6 films, Silas, or is it my poor English? I wonder because Kodachrome is said to be the most durable colour film ever, as Andy indicated.

Anyway, I'm among the Fuji converts fraction as well. When I gave KR 64 another try some months ago, I found its tendency to turn greenish in the light greys to be 'incompatible' with the hues my synaesthesia produces. I've finally realized why something always seemed wrong with Kodak products for me...

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), November 03, 2001.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/kodachrome.html

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), November 03, 2001.

I love Kodachrome but wonder if it's days are numbered. A few postings back it was mentioned that the US postal service is buying new ionizing scanners to combat the antrax problem. Since most people have to mail their Kodachrome for processing I wonder what will happen.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 03, 2001.

While Kodachrome is the dark storage king, it fades much quicker than E6 when repeatedly projected. Make E6 copies of your favourite Kodachrome slides and use the copies for intensive projection.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 03, 2001.

What constitutes dark storage? Is in a folder on a shelf not struck directly by sunlight considered dark storage? Silas

-- Silas Larsen (slarsen@mail.colgate.edu), November 03, 2001.

I think Kodachrome 25 has the sharpest, cleanest edges of all. Velvia is next. My favorite Kodachrome was Kodachrome II, long since replaced by K64. K200 is too grainy and the reds don't look accurate. For the most part I like the more pumped-up colors of Fuji, especially Velvia. I'd rather have punch than accuracy.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 03, 2001.

I'm pleased to inform those who have inquired about my freezer full of Professional Kodachrome 25 (PKM) that I'm finally down to one brick.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 03, 2001.

Kodachrome 64 is a great film for all round shooting when you want to take people and objects. I like its (what seems to me) neutral palette - it is good with flesh tones and landscapes and buildings. It is also just about the sharpest film there is - certainly much sharper than any of the E6 films with the exception of Velvia. But it is not perfect - horrible with flash, very high contrast makes it challenging to use, and it has recipricocity issues I don't like.

Compared with Fuji Provia it has more grain, but it is much sharper and has higher contrast. Velvia has similar resolution, but no one really (I think) can maintain that Velvia has neutral color - it is notoriously bad for flesh tones, for example.

For pictures in the National Parks and in the wilderness areas of the world Velvia seems to work very well - the heightened color works well with your mind's eye (even if it was not really like that). But I do like K64 when in Europe and when there is a frequent mix of street, people, buildings and landscape. It works superbly in overcast conditions when its contrasty punch really adds to a shot compared to Provia (and without the often overbearing Fuji green you see with Velvia).

It does not have quicker fading! Did I say it was sharp? I like K200 for the same reasons, but I use a good deal of Sensia 100 too for general use, which is pretty good, although not as sharp, and is a stop faster. I usually shoot K64 at 50. I think that Kodachromes are still very much viable films today. The big issue is the processing. I am in NYC and it is no trouble via a courier service from B & H, but after the US Mail lost a few rolls of mine in the mail, I would be very wary of the send-them-in-yourself approach.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 09, 2001.