MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
for those who have experiences with both of these films (I never got to shoot K25) Is there a difference compared to K64 if when viewed through a loupe, light table, enlargement etc?
I was going to buy a few rolls (at a rather inflated price) that expired a few years ago, but I'm not sure if I should spend this money if the difference isn't much at all.
I've heard that the grain is finer and that the colors are slightly brighter. Yet this older MIA photographer (who shot 64 almost exclusively) says he can make 64 look like it was shot on 25, and those who shot 25 were idiots who didn't know how to properly shoot K64.. ?? lol Hmmm....
Timdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3573 times:
Yes the difference is huge!
K25 has much finer grain, is sharper (probably the sharpest film ever) and has better colors.
"and those who shot 25 were idiots who didn't know how to properly shoot K64"
With all the respect for the "older mia photographer"......
I never got to use KM25, but this statement is a load of crap. There must be a reason all the top slide dogs from the seventies, eighties and even nineties used KM25. I think he means he can make K64 look like K25 in terms of color, because otherwise 25 blows 64 out of the water.
I can even tell when I'm scanning slides, KM25 looks so much better when scanned.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:
I've shot a few rolls of KM25 and of course, plenty of KR64. You can tell the difference between a perfectly exposed 25 vs. 64 slide easily. 25 does look so much better but it was a bit harder to shoot than 64 is. You had to be dead-on perfect with 25 and when you got it right, the slides were simply amazing. Even when scanning, you can see the difference as Tim mentioned. Those who shot 25 were not idiots, they were smart and lucky dawgs. K25 slides in your collection these days are treasures.
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3508 times:
I have lots of respect for older folks, you gotta respect when ppl have experience but some are too close minded to give proper advice. If I get the chance to get my hands on some K25 again I wont pass that up.
Btw, I saw some prints made out of Fuji Provia 100F and the colors looked too blue. For example the livery of an Aerocontinente 767 was deep blue, so was the sky. Very unnatural. I don't think I would ever use that film if Kodak stops making K64.
DB777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 885 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3470 times:
I wonder who the "older MIA photographer" was who told MiamiX707 that crap about KM25 and KR64? For the record, it sure wasn't me. I've shot a lot of 25 over the years and loved it but I used 64 most of the time because I needed the speed for darkass sunset shots.
Photographing aircraft since the Earth was flat and on Airliners.net since #338