[rollei_list] Re: OT: Leica Film Length-Now Kodachrome
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:57:33 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Sadowski" <dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:03 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Leica Film Length-Now
Kodachrome
In the period from the 1930s until the 1980s, I don't
think there was
any such thing as 120 format Kodachrome. As someone else
noted, it
was available in "miniature" formats 135 and 828 (which
some people
called "superslides") and in sheet film sizes.
Pros would have shot it in a Graflex or a Deardorff or
some such, and
not in a Rollei TLR.
Yes, it was eventually made available for a few years
starting in the
mid-to-late 1980s, but a pro market for Kodachrome failed
to develop.
By then, pros here in Chicago were very much used to using
a
combination of Polaroids for testing, and E-6 films with
fast
turnaround from pro labs.
I was involved with testing some of the MF Kodachrome and
I know I
shot some in the 2.8F I owned at the time.
As you probably already know, Kodachrome is a fussier film
that had
less latitude than E-6 and a very much warmer tone than
Ektachrome.
It was more prone to variations in processing and easily
scratched.
Once Fuji came out with Velvia, a warm-toned, sharp E-6
film, there
was really no need for MF Kodachrome.
Kodachrome has the advantage of excellent dark storage
permanence although it fades faster than incorporated
coupler film under projection conditions.
When Kodak announced Ektachrome c.1946 it discontinued
Professional Kodachrome, i.e. Kodachrome sheet film. The
photographers of the time I've talked to hated Ektachrome.
Each batch was enough different to require different filter
packs and it was considered inferior in every way. However,
it could be processed by independant labs and I think Kodak
was happy to get rid of the need to process Kodachrome at
the factory.
I have shot 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 slides in a Rolleiflex, quite
impressive. That was probably around 1990 sometime.
Early Kodachrome had a look that is hard to describe or
duplicate. Something like the original Technicolor. I think
at the time both Kodak and Technicolor found that customers
wanted _lots_ of color. Either could have been toned down a
bit and, in fact, Technicolor was very flexible and I've
seen samples of experimental prints without the
oversaturated look.
Kodak made a special version of Kodachrome for use in
motion picture cameras where prints were to be made. It was
much lower contrast than the standard version and looks so
on direct inspection. It was used by producers of
industrial/educational movies and something similar was used
by Technicolor for camera originals for some location work
where the big three-strip cameras were just too unwieldly.
An example is the movie "Shane" where a number of exterior
shots were made on low contrast Kodachrome.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
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
Other related posts:
