Having never used K200, I played around w/ a few rolls this past weekend. I like K64 for certain situations (overcast days, interior shots) - so I thought this might produce similar results, albeit w/ a larger grain pattern.

Looking at the slides, both outdoors & indoors on a cloudy day, there appears to be what I would describe as a "pinkish" cast to many of them. I've heard this film has a bias towards red - is this a typical result for this film? Based on my results, it appeared that slight underexposure mitigated this effect - unfortunately though the film doesn't have much latitude. I had them developed via mail at A&I - they have always done an outstanding job for me on K film. Is this just a trademark of this film? Any comments are appreciated.

-- P. McEnroe (elcaptain88@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002

Answers

I don't think the cast is part of the film's "bias". It is more likely attributable to processing problems or something inherent in and specific to that particular batch. I never noticed the cast you described, although things change and its been some time since I used K200. Maybe others have encountered it.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

I shoot a lot of K200. I've found that older film stocks, or those that have been stored in less than ideal conditions go pink in the highlights, really more of a magenta. Similarly, greenish blacks are found. New stocks, or fresh from frozen older stocks seem to be more neutral.

I've never used anyone but Kodak/Kodalux for processing.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 19, 2002.

4 years ago I had roll of Kodachrome 200 that came out with a good hint of Magenta Hue. The film was sent to Kodak for processing; along with a Photo CD too. The Photo CD images have the tint too. The camera used was a Graphic 35 rangefinder with a Graflar F3.5 lens (3 element Rodenstock 50mm lens). The film roll was expired for 1 year before useage. I found it in my suitcase during a cross country trip. When stopping at some beautifull areas in New Mexico; I said I wish had some slide fim to capture the view...Ah what the heck; I pressed the old graphic 35 into service; shooting an entire roll at 1/300 at from Ff 5.6 to F11 ....The resulting slides are more detailed than the abilites of my canon FS2710 2720dpi scanner!anothe r Graphic 35 link

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 19, 2002.

Last time I used it I got magenta highlights - not nice! It's an interesting film (Kodachrome)- colour with the texture of a B&W film. This corseness gives the impression of sharpness but when blown up on my ED4000 at 4000dpi it's not that sharp. I managed to generate the Kodachrome 'look' with a 100 E6 film and some noise filtration in Photoshop. I guess though when it's stored and processed correctly it does have a certain tonality and colour reproduction which is unobtailnable with E6 film - that 'National Geographic' look?

-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

I agree that K200 does sometimes have a slight pinkish cast, I suppose, but it has not usually worried me. I used to use K200 a lot - wonderful sharpness - I really don't agree with Johann that it is only "apparent" - although certainly it is a high contrast film which helps the perception of sharpness. My experience of scanning it has been very good - in fact I found the grain was surprisingly low when printed from scans. However, I now use Provia 400F in situations when I need the speed - this is a remarkable film with amazingly low grain. Low contrast (like Provia 100) though, but a wonderful (albeit expensive) film.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

Like all color film, KL and PKL will shift toward magenta as it ages or if it isn't stored properly. Which is why PKL exists, at least for the time being. I've shot hundreds of rolls of this film, and for my taste, it's the best trans film ever made for street work: sharp, a little grainy, with a natural palette that makes films like provia and velveeta look like cheesy retina massage with overblown and unnaturally saturated color. Color neg has far more latitiude, and takes a lot less skill to work with, which is why Kodachrome is fundamentally dead. What a shame, as nothing else looks quite like KL, even after scanning an E-6 film, sharpening, adding noise and desaturating it slightly. Silk purse, sows' ear.

-- Karl Knize (karlknize@ameritech.net), May 20, 2002.

Karl

Provia 400F looks nothing like Velvia! Have you tried it?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

K200 always had a warmer bias than I liked and I was constantly searching for a substitute. When E200 came along, K200 was gone from my bag. Now that Provia 400F is here, the E200 has left the building too. K64 to me has always had pale, blah color, especially the reds are dull and brownish. The only Kodachrome I ever really liked was Kodachrome-II (d.1974)and bewteen 74 and 90 I suffered with K25 and polarizers strictly for the fine grain and sharpness in big enlargements, until Velvia came along. I for one do not lament the passing of Kodachrome other than for its archival qualities.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

Robin--

Oh yes. Recently I used it for a corporate assignment in 120 and I've tested in on the street. It's certainly an excellent film, and I appreciate its more sudbdued palate in comparison to provia 100. It's definitely flatter and not quite as sharp as KL, although it's perfectly good. When KL is dead I'll probably use whatever version is current. But for now, if I decide to go to Mexico and include some color, and I want some grit to the images and know that I'm not going to be able to refrigerate the stock, I'll stick with it. Please don't take this personally, but I'm amazed that there are so many folks on this site who shoot with Leicas and hand process in Rodinal and such, in the never ending quest for authenticity, and then turn around and use the most grainless, overly saturated flavor of the month for color. Just my opinion!

-- Karl Knize (karlknize@ameritech.net), May 20, 2002.

Karl

I am a Kodachrome fan so you don't really have to convince me, but the simple fact is I only use K200 when I can't use K64. I am not heavily into grain in color films to be honest. Also, although I am a long time Kodachrome user (which has a great palette in my opinion) I have been trying other films a good deal too. Provia 100F is grainless but I have to say not all that exciting to my eyes. Low in contrast and a bit "blah" to me. People get excited about it because it has such low grain and theoretically high resolution - but it is not inspiring me. Still, its palette seems OK - at least its flesh tones are not out of control (a la Velvia or E100 series). My favorite E6 film is Sensia 100. It looks different to Kodachrome, but not really worse -- just different. One big drag about Kodachrome is its reciprococity failure - at least E100S and Astia and Provia are more controllable/less objectionable than Kodachrome. I am not a big fan of Velvia myself, although I do use it in 220 for landscapes as I ALWAYS get good feedback about prints using it. I could just ignore all these people and tell them they are wrong, but people respond very positively to its warmth - so I just go with it. It also works very well in the American West - in some ways it seems to translate more into the way that people respond to these colors in the landscape. I find Kodachrome works wonderfully for European scenes. I guess one picks the film for the job.

My feelings about Provia 400F are simply that it really is astonishing for a 400 slide film and it at least has an very acceptable palette - quite an achievement for such a high speed film.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

I like K200, a very sharp film in that ISO. It produces bold reds (like other Kchromes) but I would not say it is color biased to red. The one problem I have with the film is with high contrast scenes, which sometimes are not handled well. And it requires relatively precise exposure.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.