[rollei_list] Re: Kodachrome
- From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt <Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@xxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:29:29 +0100
Dear folks:
Well some comment from me:
I have never been an enthusiast on Kodachrome, however mostly
because it was very unconvenient (eand expensive) for me because
there was no local lab.
We had a local professional lab here in Braunschweig, the home town
of Rollei, Voigtlander, and Volkswagen, where I could bring my E6
rolls, and could get them processed within one hour if needed. For 2
$,-. The lab has closed.
Kodachrome did take with the Lausanne-way 10 days or more.
For Super-8, Kodachrome 40 was the only way to get any sharp movies,
so I sticked to it until 2001, when I shot the last rolls (which have
been frozen for 10 years in my refrigerator at -18 Celsius). The
outcome was perfect.
I never did like Ektachrome X-Type films. They give a to reddish athmosphere.
If I am on a glacier say near the Matterhorn or Mont Blanc at 12:00
noon in summer, the snow ot the glacier HAS TO BE BLUE!!!!
I did hate films, making the snow neutral or red
My choice have been EPR (by the way, is it still available??) or the
newer 100 G but NOT the X-Versions of Kodak.
I cannot compare how the Kodachrome was, because I did not use it.
About 4 or 5 years ago, I shot rolls of Kodachrome, Ektachrome and
Fuji, and taped them to my window showing to the South into most of
the sun. I posted the results in this forum (however I forgot the
details, sorry, but maybe someone can bury it out).
I showed that the Kodachrome was not very good, at least that the UV
exposure of the sun degraded it more than others.
But, anyway, Emanual does encouraging me to buy at least one role of
it for playing around.
Best regards
Dirk
At 22:48 27.02.2009, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:47 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Kodachrome
Emmanuel
Chacun a son gout and all that but do you feel there are some areas
where K'chrome shines over the more modern slide films?
rgds
Chat
Kodachrome has established a very good record of dark storage
life. OTOH, its projection life is not especially good. For those
shooting stock photos Kodachrome has, at least in the past, been
the film of choice because of its long dark storage life. If you
project or display transparencies frequently other films may be better.
Now, there has been much change in color films even over the
last ten years. I don't know of any published data on the dark
storage life of current films, its quite possible they may match Kodachrome.
Also, when Kodachrome was introduced it had very brilliant
color, partly due to its high contrast. This seems to have been at
least partly a choice made by Kodak, perhaps based on market
research. Technicolor also chose to have a very brilliant look
because producers, at the time of its introduction, wanted it to
look that way. Both systems are capable of lower contrast. Kodak
seems to have lowered the contrast of Kodachrome since it was
introduced plus the color gamut seems to have changed just a bit.
I shot a lot of Kodachrome on a European tour quite some time
ago. The slides still look like they did originally. However, all
had a very slight magenta cast, probably an artifact of processing.
They were all processed locally by A&I, one of the best pro labs in
the country.
Kodachrome, for those not familiar with the differences,
requires a special and quite complicated process to develop.
Kodachrome was released about 1935, initially as 16mm motion
picture film. Kodak was in something of a rush to get a color film
on the market because they undoubtedly knew that Agfa was
developing such a film. Because Kodak could not come up with a
suitable mechanism for anchoring the couplers in the emulsion it
chose to put them in the reversal developing solutions. As a result
Kodachrome must go through four developing steps. About the only
other color film I know of that used a similar approach was made by
Ilford. It used a similar processing technique but used a different
method of isolating the emulsion layers. One of the differences in
Kodachrome's permenance may be the type of dye that is produced in
the emulsion.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in
the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
