Kodachrome: worth a look

An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html

The first one from 1939 is stunning.

Cheers

Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't when
I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and
have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and nowhere
near what a good digital image can provide today.

I was at an anniversary dinner last night, a choir group that had been
going for 90 years and for whom I had done some photography over the
last 15 or so years. They put up a gallery of shots over the years, and
I was literally appalled at the shocking color and tonality of some of
my earlier images. When I went digital in 2004, the choir shots from
that time on were just fabulous, excellent color and tonality, sharpness
and sheer clarity. I think we just got used to the film look and it has
taken good digital photography to show how mediocre film could be - and
that with a 6 MP camera.

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi gear,
until they heard a better system going, after which they couldn't stand
their erstwhile gear. Same story.

Colin D.

In article , ColinD
wrote:

Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:


http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/..._kodachrome.fo
rtune/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't when
I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and
have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and nowhere
near what a good digital image can provide today.

Colin D.

I disagree. Completely.

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article , ColinD
wrote:

Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:


http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/..._kodachrome.fo
rtune/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't when
I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and
have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and nowhere
near what a good digital image can provide today.

Colin D.

I disagree. Completely.

Me too......And, my old kodachrome slides have held up better than any other
color film type.....They grow mould spots just as fast, but their colors
don't fade with age as much as the other slide films have.

"ColinD" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html
I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't when I
was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and have
that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and nowhere near
what a good digital image can provide today.

I was at an anniversary dinner last night, a choir group that had been
going for 90 years and for whom I had done some photography over the last
15 or so years. They put up a gallery of shots over the years, and I was
literally appalled at the shocking color and tonality of some of my
earlier images. When I went digital in 2004, the choir shots from that
time on were just fabulous, excellent color and tonality, sharpness and
sheer clarity. I think we just got used to the film look and it has taken
good digital photography to show how mediocre film could be - and that
with a 6 MP camera.

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi gear,
until they heard a better system going, after which they couldn't stand
their erstwhile gear. Same story.

While I can certainly understand not liking the film, I got some great
images from it. When properly shot, I loved the color and tonality, as well
as the fine grain. And my decades-old chromes are as good as new.

Hey, why don't we do a special shoot-in category and ask people to post
their favority Kodachrome shots? Yes, the color will depend on the scanner's
ability to extract the look from the film, but it might be interesting to
see what some of us have stored away in the archives.

Bill Graham wrote:

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article , ColinD
wrote:

Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:



http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/..._kodachrome.fo

rtune/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't when
I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and
have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and nowhere
near what a good digital image can provide today.

Colin D.

I disagree. Completely.

Me too......And, my old kodachrome slides have held up better than any
other color film type.....They grow mould spots just as fast, but their
colors don't fade with age as much as the other slide films have.

Well, what you don't realise is that Kodak had 'chrome processing plants
in New Zealand and Australia back then. The NZ processing was not too
good, browny reds, overall blue-green casts etc. The odd film I put in
for processing was done in Oz, and was better, but the very odd film
that found it way to the States was streets ahead of the local
processing here or Oz.

So I guess I should say that results I had from local processing didn't
do the film justice.

And of course that film was the best lasting of the available films,
thanks to the non-substantive emulsion which allowed better dyes than
could be obtained from the dye-coupled development of other films. But
processing was the key to good color - and was totally outside the
control of the photographers.

Colin D.

"ColinD" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article , ColinD
wrote:

Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome
work:



http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/..._kodachrome.fo
rtune/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical value,
but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I didn't
when
I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might be smooth, and
have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors artificial, and
nowhere
near what a good digital image can provide today.

Colin D.

I disagree. Completely.

Me too......And, my old kodachrome slides have held up better than any
other color film type.....They grow mould spots just as fast, but their
colors don't fade with age as much as the other slide films have.

Well, what you don't realise is that Kodak had 'chrome processing plants
in New Zealand and Australia back then. The NZ processing was not too
good, browny reds, overall blue-green casts etc. The odd film I put in
for processing was done in Oz, and was better, but the very odd film that
found it way to the States was streets ahead of the local processing here
or Oz.

So I guess I should say that results I had from local processing didn't do
the film justice.

And of course that film was the best lasting of the available films,
thanks to the non-substantive emulsion which allowed better dyes than
could be obtained from the dye-coupled development of other films. But
processing was the key to good color - and was totally outside the control
of the photographers.

Colin D.

Yes, that's true. In general all color processing has always been, "out of
the control of the photographers". Until now, of course, with digital stuff.
We are finally free of the labs, (and the old blue nosed biddies who ruined
our nudes)and can do our own color from snap to wall........Halleluiah, free
at last......:^)

Bowser wrote:

"ColinD" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:
An article in Fortune magazine highlighting some nice Kodachrome work:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/...une/index.html

I find the images are very interesting because of the historical
value, but I can't say I like the tonality of Kodachrome at all. I
didn't when I was shooting the stuff in the 70's and 80's. It might
be smooth, and have that Kodachrome look, but I find the colors
artificial, and nowhere near what a good digital image can provide today.

I was at an anniversary dinner last night, a choir group that had been
going for 90 years and for whom I had done some photography over the
last 15 or so years. They put up a gallery of shots over the years,
and I was literally appalled at the shocking color and tonality of
some of my earlier images. When I went digital in 2004, the choir
shots from that time on were just fabulous, excellent color and
tonality, sharpness and sheer clarity. I think we just got used to
the film look and it has taken good digital photography to show how
mediocre film could be - and that with a 6 MP camera.

Just like audio. How many people were pleased with their hi-fi gear,
until they heard a better system going, after which they couldn't
stand their erstwhile gear. Same story.

While I can certainly understand not liking the film, I got some great
images from it. When properly shot, I loved the color and tonality, as
well as the fine grain. And my decades-old chromes are as good as new.

Hey, why don't we do a special shoot-in category and ask people to post
their favority Kodachrome shots? Yes, the color will depend on the
scanner's ability to extract the look from the film, but it might be
interesting to see what some of us have stored away in the archives.

Great idea. Then I could show one or two of my old kodachromes and see
what reaction they get

Colin D.

ColinD wrote,on my timestamp of 1/07/2009 10:03 AM:

So I guess I should say that results I had from local processing didn't
do the film justice.

but that has never stopped you from telling everyone who wants to listen that
"film can only do 6mp" or whatever crap you got way back when.
Nothing like mis-information to promote your digital crap sales, eh?


And of course that film was the best lasting of the available films,
thanks to the non-substantive emulsion which allowed better dyes than
could be obtained from the dye-coupled development of other films. But
processing was the key to good color - and was totally outside the
control of the photographers.


Says he who has never tried one of the later E6 emulsions...