Replacement for Kodachrome?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Velvia is no replacement for Kodachrome, and Velvia is ****.


Obscenity, and opinion without explanation are no substitute for either
helpful advice or reasoned debate.


Peter

Bill Hilton wrote:


films began to eclipse it, which is why K-25 was dropped and sales of K-64 have
fallen off so much.

The culprits were also:

--zoom lenses with relatively small apertures.
--emergence of 1 hours print photo services -- death of the slide show
--E-6 turnaround in a day (v. several days/week for K-25/64)

I'm not sure when ISO 100 E-6 began to get to finer resolutions that compared to
K-25.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

wrote:
: Velvia is no replacement fo Kodachrome, and Velvia is ****.

The only problem is that Kodachrome is no replacement for Kodachrome.
The original poster asked about Kodachrome 25, which is long gone.

The only Kodachrome films available now are Kodachrome 64 and 200.
These both have more grain than the better E-6 films (Velvia, Provia,
Kodak's 100 speed E-6). Kodak's own data sheet (publication E-55)
gives RMS grain figure of 12 for K64 and 19 for K200. These are both
higher than the figures for 100 speed E-6 films.

I find that the color balance in current K64 film is no match for that in
my older K25 slides. I also think that K64's color palette is inferior to
that of EliteChrome 100. Velvia can seem oversaturated at times, but it's
far from excrement. When you factor in the need to send K64 off for
processing and waiting a week or more to get slides back, it's just
not worth it.

John Shaw is one nature photographer who switched from K25 to Velvia.
The original poster can check his work out at
http://www.johnshawphoto.com/home.htm. I'm sure none of it will meet
with Michael Scarpitti's approval.

Warren B. Hapke

wrote:
: Velvia is no replacement fo Kodachrome, and Velvia is ****.

The only problem is that Kodachrome is no replacement for Kodachrome.
The original poster asked about Kodachrome 25, which is long gone.

The only Kodachrome films available now are Kodachrome 64 and 200.
These both have more grain than the better E-6 films (Velvia, Provia,
Kodak's 100 speed E-6). Kodak's own data sheet (publication E-55)
gives RMS grain figure of 12 for K64 and 19 for K200. These are both
higher than the figures for 100 speed E-6 films.

I find that the color balance in current K64 film is no match for that in
my older K25 slides. I also think that K64's color palette is inferior to
that of EliteChrome 100. Velvia can seem oversaturated at times, but it's
far from excrement. When you factor in the need to send K64 off for
processing and waiting a week or more to get slides back, it's just
not worth it.

John Shaw is one nature photographer who switched from K25 to Velvia.
The original poster can check his work out at
http://www.johnshawphoto.com/home.htm. I'm sure none of it will meet
with Michael Scarpitti's approval.

Warren B. Hapke

Alan Browne wrote:

The culprits were also:

--zoom lenses with relatively small apertures.
--emergence of 1 hours print photo services -- death of the slide show
--E-6 turnaround in a day (v. several days/week for K-25/64)

Also, before the emergence of tabular grain films during the 1980s,
Kodachrome was really obviously better than any other 35mm colour
film. There are still a core group with a strong preference for
Kodachrome's acutance and colour rendering, but the other film
technologies have improved while Kodachrome hasn't changed much.

I think Kodachrome is the only old-style grain colour film left.
In the B&W world plus-x and tri-x are alive and well because many
people prefer them to the t-grain films. I think it possible that
there are still a lot of people who either prefer Kodachrome or
who would if they made the comparison, but don't use it anymore
because of the longer turnaround times and extra expense.

Peter.
--

I like this quote I found in the equipment section of John Shaws
webpage.

=A0
"While camera equipment itself does not take pictures -- photographers
do that -- I am frequently asked as to the equipment I use.=A0 Here is a
listing of my currently used gear.=A0 Don't go out and duplicate this
list; buy the equipment you need to take the photographs you like.=A0=A0
But be careful.=A0 Let me quote my friend Jack Dykinga: "Cameras and
lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film.=A0
Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good
photographs.=A0 Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your
images will stir the soul."

=A0

Peter Irwin wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

The culprits were also:

--zoom lenses with relatively small apertures.
--emergence of 1 hours print photo services -- death of the slide show
--E-6 turnaround in a day (v. several days/week for K-25/64)


Also, before the emergence of tabular grain films during the 1980s,
Kodachrome was really obviously better than any other 35mm colour
film. There are still a core group with a strong preference for
Kodachrome's acutance and colour rendering, but the other film
technologies have improved while Kodachrome hasn't changed much.

I don't believe the purists among us (or the purist part of us) wanted
Kodachrome to "improve" the film in any way. It was fine, thank you. Perhaps
if they had licenced more processing in large cities, reducing the turnaround to
24-48 hours, then the popularity of the film would have held up. That's a
product improvement by way of service.


I think Kodachrome is the only old-style grain colour film left.
In the B&W world plus-x and tri-x are alive and well because many
people prefer them to the t-grain films. I think it possible that
there are still a lot of people who either prefer Kodachrome or
who would if they made the comparison, but don't use it anymore
because of the longer turnaround times and extra expense.

There are several subjects for which I'd use K-25 if the film were available and
the 1 week turnaround that we use to have in Canada was still available
(processing was in Toronto). OTOH, the results I get with various Kodak and
Fuji E-6's are very good. I just don't have great confidence in their
longevity. Scanning and mainaining an archive of the better images abates that
risk somewhat.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Of course not. Shaw's a moron.

Of course not. Shaw's a moron.

On Jupiter's crown! The man uses zooms! ZOOMS? Any credibility he might
otherwise have just disappeared.