Aer Lingus
Topic Author
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:10 am

I suppose this is mainly directed to those like Mike, Joe, Andy and Carlos but here goes anyway.
Would any of you dare give me a sort of review and your opinions of the film, trying not to be biased of course ! My reason being that I recently saw some processed paid K64 for the same price as Fuji Sensia 100 and Im quite anxious to try it out, it being much more expensive in other camera stores that I've been in.
approx $10 I saw it for and maybe some people could tell me how much it is where they live, just for comparison sake

Many thanks,
Martin
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:18 am

In Belgium I pay less for a K64 (incl. prepaid processing) than I pay for a Sensia 100 + Processing.

The bad thing with K64 is that processing takes 3 weeks, and I find that Sensia is an easier film to get good results from.

Staffan
 
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:52 am

Lingus...

We don't have KR down here in Brazil, so we have to use Fuji or Ektachrome.
I used Eckta many years ago but since 5 years I'm a Fuji user, mainly Velvia 50 or Provia 100F... I also had the opportunity to use KR, both 25 and 64, and what I can say, without trying to start and Fuji x KR war, is that I don't like it, as I think KR has a greyish look..the colours seem not natural and it is also much more difficult to scan it with nice results. Fuji, specialy the 100F, brings out very sharp images and very natural colour rendition...
Now, being a litle nasty, check out the professional photography magazines around and you will see that most of the pros use Fuji only, KR is hardly mentioned.

Rgds,

Renato
"ad astra per aspera"
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:53 am

The colours on the KR64 are not as vibrant as any other film, and its yucky in almost all conditions except sun fully on the a/c.

yup, yucky is my word of the day  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 2:39 am

I could never understand why people talk so bad about kodachrome so much- it is a great film, great colors and scans great- never a problem with it and many many aviation photogs use it. Joe
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 3:39 am

Excellent film... beautiful virbrant saturated colours (better than any else in my opinion, and certainly NOT yucky - sorry Dan, you're wrong!)... and very very easy to scan.

It must be handled correctly though. Exposure must be very accurate, it must definitely not be underexposed except on the very brightest of days, and if its a bit dull it helps to give it a bit of a kick with a little bit of over-exposure.

Andy

PS: The only pictures of mine ("Andy Martin") on the database that are not on Kodachrome 64, out of 649, are the pics of the BMI A330 and one picture of a 747 taken at Manchester many years ago. I shall not be moving away from K64 until it disappears from the market.
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Joge
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 3:26 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 5:38 am

Well...

K64:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jorgos Tsambikakis



Not K64:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jorgos Tsambikakis



The place and the weather was the same, and sun beaming from the same direction. Which photo do you prefer?

-Joge (a.k.a. K64 never again)
Bula!
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:06 am

With respect Joge, that sort of inappropriate comparison is just the sort of thing that can get ANY film a bad name. Aeroflot IL-96 - direct sun, Gulf Air A330 - no direct sun but bright background (there are no shadows from the Gulf Air, look below the wing whereas there is beneath the Aeroflot). This Gulf Air was taken in just the sort of lighting situation that would fool almost any camera metering system (note I say metering system and NOT the film).


The next bit is not directed at you Joge, but is a general observation:

Kodachrome rewards those who are prepared to get to know how to use it properly. It is not a simple point and shoot film, but in all honesty neither is most slide film. The people who I find typically get disenchanted with K64 are those who put a film in the camera and expect perfect results every time, no matter what the lighting conditions, just by leaving the camera on automatic. These people will usually get better results from prints, where minor exposure errors are compensated for in the printing process. If a photographer is prepared to learn to use camera and film, and adapt to get the best out of both, Kodachrome will reward with some of the most stunning slides you will ever see.

Every so often I get frustrated with Kodak - the processing, etc. But without fail, once that yellow box falls through the mail box, everything is forgiven and I abandon any idea of using any other film.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
LGW
Posts: 4281
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 6:07 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:15 am

Sorry I have to agree with Dan, I find K64 a dull looking film - sorry!

LGW
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:21 am

I tell you what i found worst about K64, it was the fact that I don't get out to an airport very often and so never get good conditions or weather or anything. And that is where it was worst, but to be honest I find it lifeless compared to the more vibrant films (Fuji's slide films and most print films).

Regards

Dan
 
Joge
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 3:26 am

Skymonster

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:21 am

K64 is for those who always have the sun 90 degrees behind their back, that's what I tried to explaing.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

K64 is slow film and still needs +50EV when the light is behind the subject: 1/8s on a sunny day, LMAO. Very nice film...

-Joge
Bula!
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:25 am

OK guys, I'll admit that K64 can be a bit lack-lustre on dull days if not treated right, but what the heck... If its dull, leave the camera in the bag unless the subject matter is really worthwhile anyway (and if you do get the camera out, know how to get the best out of the film Big grin). Dull days are marginal in terms of it being worthwhile to shoot anyway - save money and effort and wait til the sun comes out. Then use K64 - on sunny days it'll reward you more than any other!  Big thumbs up

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
LGW
Posts: 4281
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 6:07 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:28 am

Im the same as Dan. I am doing my A-Levels 8-4.30 Monday - Friday and I work from 8-6 on a Saturday. That leaves me with sunday which I have coursework/revision to do etc. So I have to plan a day to go to the airport and go regardless of the weather. I dont reallyt get a choice!

LGW
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:32 am

Yes, and you know you'll get lower quality results for yourself, and less pics accepted here, if you shoot on dull days rather than wait for the sun, whatever film (or digi-cam  Big grin) you use.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Joge
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 3:26 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:33 am

Of what you said, Skymonster, I think the K64 is a film for the laazzyy spotters who lie under the sun on the grass or the beach.  Big thumbs up

-Joge
Bula!
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:36 am

Joge,

That sounds good - I'm all for that sort of spotting! Maybe that's why I like K64 so much  Big thumbs up

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Guest

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:39 am

I have to say that when screening photos, you can instantly tell which are Kodachrome. They simply don't scan as well in 99% of the cases. But I tend grade on a curve for K64  Big grin

S2
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:44 am

That's excellent S2. Please be aware I use K64 exclusively - now you know this, I'll expect a bit of lee-way during screening of my pics Big grin

Andy

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:53 am

Dan, that cloudy thai 744 pic i just put up is K64 and its fine, so K64 can be shot in any weather. I think the reason many people hate it is because like anything in life that requires a bit more attention- its overlooked because you can shoot something else and not worry about light etc as much.

Joe
---------------------------------------------------
I tell you what i found worst about K64, it was the fact that I don't get out to an airport very often and so never get good conditions or weather or anything.
Dan

 
Guest

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 8:44 am

Kodak isn't selling a lot of KR64 to Scottish a.netters that I know.
Fred Seggie and David Unsworth along with myself have dumped KR64 for Fuji. I think we may have converted Alastair Gardiner to Fuji last year as well whilst the rest have all gone 100% digital.
It's the Fuji quality and service that's won us over.

Gerry/EDI
 
TomH
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:13 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 8:51 am

Most of my color images on A.net are K64. I disagree with those who say it doesn't work in cloudy weather. I have found that K64's higher contrast actually enhances some bad weather shots.

K64 isn't as colorful overall as most other slide films today. But many other films have colors that are less realistic, some very much so. This characteristic is more noticable on non-airliner photography, such as scenery. For me, telephoto shots with K64 require bright sunlight, otherwise I find myself shooting at 1/100 or so which is marginal.

It costs a little less than Provia 100F for film and development where I live. It has a huge following among transportation shooters to this day. Don't go near the disasterous 200 speed version. If you have done everything right, expect the sharpest images you are likley to get with any film. The problems I have with K64 are as actually problems with the Kodak organization more than anything else.
1.It takes too long to get K64 slides back, 15-18 days lately for most people not living in a big US city.
2.The infamous Kodachrome scratch has been around for 20 years. This is a shallow lateral scratch running most of the length of the roll. Usually about 1/3 down from top of frame. They say it's not their problem-hah!

None of the competitors give you an image like it. It is ancient history, but it is still among the very best there is. Buy it, try it. You can learn to love it, but the same can't be said of the Kodak organization.

Tom Hildreth
 
User avatar
BO__einG
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 5:20 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 9:09 am

Why dont they make a new kinda of film which is derived from K64 and has all the goodies including its ASA setting of 64.
Ekta and Elite.. YUCK!
I dont like that film either as I shot 3 rolls.. puhh!
But I will give this film another try sometime.. As some picts came out decent in scans.. And even in Projection light ALL KL64 shots came out wonderful!!!!  Big thumbs up

But I just hate Kodak. They put in Goobies and scratches for almsot all my shots..
What are these guys? Grade 1? 4 days of lab training??!
Pitiful!
I like the fujis cuz they are more flexible than the old 64. and quick/cheap yada yada..

Bo
Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 9:26 am

You know, this may upset alot of people but i really have to laugh- i am involved with auctioning of kodachrome slides pretty heavily (many of you reading this know about kodachrome slide auctions that take place all over the world)- slides that are selling sometimes for over $400 (yes, thats four hundred dollars for one slide)- so when people tell me that they switched from kodachrome to fuji or prints or whatever, i say to myself- hey, do what you have to do my friend. With kodachrome, even if you shoot for yourself, you are shooting something that has value- possibly tremendous value to certain collectors. So I just keep on listening to all the people who switch, and thats all good and dandy- but i swear if any of you email me privately and i show you some auction results you're seriously gonna be angry that the format you choose (whatever it is other than kodachrome) is worth nothing to a collector, only to you or if you sell it to a company.

To each his own- for me- its kodachrome- and when digital slr's increase to above 7MP's and are somewhat affordable, i'll use digital to complement the slides.

Joe
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:06 am

People complain that shooting in poor/no sun conditions with K64 produces poor results. Well, you really shouldn't be shooting in those conditions anyway. While a hot item or if you're on a trip is fine, I personally stay away from the airport on anything but good sunny days. The result with any film in poor conditions is just that..poor.

With that said..

Kodachrome is excellent. I find the colors to be dead-on, exactly as the scene I just shot. You really have to see a perfectly exposed K25/64 slide to appreciate the film. Anyone here who shot K64 and said that it was horrible or "yucky" well..without being rude..didn't shoot a quality shot. Plain-and-simple guys (and girls)! If you are nailing the exposure and focusing, shooting in the conditions any slide shooter should be shooting in (sun!) you should have a perfect slide representing the scene as close as I've seen on any film type. Yes, K64 is not the best but it IS pretty damn good. If anyone wants to see what I mean just stop by my apartment in Rockaway Beach and I'll show you 1000's of "pretty damn good" slides. And no, this is not a bash against Fuji, Provia 100F is good also just not for me as a serious slide collector. Kodachrome is the currency required for that purpose.

So Martin...I say go for it!! Try out that K64 and shoot away....

Michael
 
F27
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 11:59 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:09 am

I have to agree with Joe we bought a colection that is all kodachrome and is worth a mint. Will be starting to Auction them soon. My camera is a KR64 Virgin as that is all that will ever go in there. On a cloudy day i use my other camera to shoot prints only as a safety shot just in case anything happens to the aircraft. I started to use KR64 in the 70's and have always loved it and always will. What you shoot today is going to be worth a fortune in the future. Especilly to serious slide collectors like me who shoot rolls of spares to trade and sell with other collectors
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:18 am

The problem with Kodachrome is that it takes too long to process. I think this is the main factor that newbies (as myself) start off with other films, get used to them, and then.....why change if you are allready satisfied? Beginners are more dependant on quick feedback, who wants to wait for 3 weeks just to see if those panning shots came out well, when you can have the results in less than 2 days?
I've shot a few rolls of K64, found it rather tricky to get the exposure correct, most of the shots came out underexposed. If I used it more, results would improve, but waiting 3 weeks is ridiculous...
Good thing about Kodachrome is that I get the feeling of good quality when I look at them, something I don't always get when the local lab processes my fuji's. They have messed up my slides on occasions, but Kodak have still served me well in that respect.

Here are two similar shots on different films.

K64

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Staffan Hardie



Sensia 100

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Staffan Hardie



Regards,

Staffan
 
5280AGL
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 6:50 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:24 am

Shooting Kodachrome is fine, but for non-collectors/traders (which is about 90% of us), it is an inconvenience. Poor quality control from Kodak, rediculous processing turnaround, and dare I say technologically inferior to Fuji's new films. Why should the average photog shoot Kodachrome when one can get a film like Fuji Provia back in as little as one hour with superior results? One can have personal preferences, but there is no way one can logically argue that Provia is not a superior film to Kodachrome. It has a better palette, finer grain, scans better, and projects better, those are FACTS. I know some will bring up the uncertain archival quality of the new E6 films, that is hogwash. E6, if stored properly will probably last just as long as Kodachrome. I have Kodachromes that are 20+ years old that look like complete trash and I have 20+ year old Ektachrome's (that were stored properly) that look just like I shot them yesterday.
 
F27
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 11:59 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:29 am

But does Fuji give you a licence to print money at auctions like KR 64 does as joe said the price that old slides are going for you will never seee Fuji slides going for those prices
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:32 am

sorry to sound mean but what you say below, 5280 sounds dumb as heck- how can you say that it is hogwash and then say will "probaby last just as long"
that makes 0 sense to me- probably means that theres a chance it wont last just as long. It either does or it doesnt- probably doesnt cut it. If you were a car salesman and i were your client id run as far as i can away from you. (otherwise im sure youre a really nice guy  Smile

Joe

=======================================

I know some will bring up the uncertain archival quality of the new E6 films, that is hogwash. E6, if stored properly will probably last just as long as Kodachrome.
 
User avatar
BO__einG
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 5:20 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:35 am

Maybe the novice / beginner type shooters should start off with Prints and after a while with increased skill and knowledge of the camera they are using as well as results they see from their prints...
They can go to slide when they feel confident to do so.
I also think when people go to slides as their main type of film, they should start using Fuji Slides.
After a while getting used to slide shooting using Fuji Products and the results you guys see look good enuf and they scan good perhaps they can go to the next step..
K64 should be on the mind. I see K64 as like the most advanced film to ever use like its a Grade-12 level kind of film. That kind of film should be used after a while of good experience with slides, and camera and stuff.
As this film seems to be demanding like crazy in order to get good results.

IF this is all no good, then Go for Digital and save all this hassle.

As what I see, if these steps are followed then there would be a less chance for K64 slides to come out bad and more chance of K64 slides to come out good like how guys like Joe,Mike,Rob,Carlos,Frank Gets from their slide results after processing.
And then there is the waiting game.. 2-3-4-5-weeks ..

Bo
Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:37 am

ok, so we have come to the conclusion so far that..

If you are a collecter, and 50mm shooter, then Kodachrome is for you. If you are just a hobbyist or you want to be really creative (shooting in stupid conditions, crazy shutter speeds etc) then Kodachrome is not for you.

I still think that even Kodachrome in the best conditions is not the very best, but I guess its just personal opinion (I for example, would prefer a shot to be 1 stop over exposed than 1 stop underexposed).

I also admit that when I started using KR64, I was almost using my SLR as a point and shoot camera, but by the time I was finished with it I was setting the exposure, aperture and shutter speed, but still not getting acceptable results.

Martin, From your pictures i'd say you are more suited to the Fuji films, simply because of your style of photography is more suited to that film, and I think your photos will look better as a result of using Sensia or Provia or superia or reala or whatever..

Regards

Dan
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:50 am

Dan,
please note- full frame sharp as a tack action shots (approach/rotate/whatever) are very much accepted by k64 collectors- not just 50mm ramp shots.
another thing- for you to say that youd rather have a shot overexposed 1 stop than underexposed 1 stop- forgive me but that is the craziest thing i ever heard of- overexposed slides look horrible- in any format (kr, print, digital, fuji, whatever). And yes, it is your opinion that kodachrome in the best conditions is not the best- i differ- strongly- all my shots here on ainet in all conditions (night/sun/cloudy/dusk/dawn/etc/etc/etc) are all on kodachrome so when people tell me that its a bad film and that it is no good and they get bad results- i have to sit back and.......

Joe
 
5280AGL
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 6:50 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:50 am

All I am saying is that traders are not the majority of aviation photographers, nor are they the standard. Most people are interested in achieving the highest quality results with the fastest possible processing time. Kodachrome takes a back seat there in both categories. Aviation/rail traders are about the only people left who use Kodachrome exclusively, you don't see landscape, portrait, or wildlife photographers using Kodachrome very much anymore. There is a reason for that, there are better choices out there these days.
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:53 am

5280,
Im sitting here telling you that all the money you spend on film- you can recoup a good percentage of it if you shoot kr- if that sounds unreasonable, then i have nothing left to say. you may have to wait for the film to come back longer than other films and you may have to adjust to the learning curve that comes with the film but in the end, you will be greatly rewarded.

Joe
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:54 am

I have to agree with Joe on one part. The word 'probably' did your argument in. Don't get me wrong, I am a former K64 refugee myself and now a solid Fujichrome (Provia and Velvia) shooter. But on the issue of archival life of a Provia compared to that of a K-64 image has yet to be proved. In some 75 years we will see how long Provia stands up to Kodachrome.....frankly I am pulling for Provia..... However, like you I do believe at least for the short term that Fuji has a superior pro-slide film.

I am also smart enough to know however that if I were to start collecting and selling slides like Mike, Joe and Carlos, that Kodachrome would be my film of choice if I wanted to derive an income from this type of photography.

Just my .02,

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:04 am

I do not argue the fact that Kodachrome is probably not the best slide film out there or easiest to shoot but come on?? Crap? Can't get good results? Yucky? That's what I'm arguing. If you can't (as a photographer) get perfect results with Kodachrome then you should work on your photography skills and not worry about finding a film type that looks good in cloudy weather. I'm sure you get my point. Shoot whatever film you like but as a photographer, you should be able to get good results with any film. Now, if you don't want to use Kodachrome because it's hard to get in your area or takes 3 months to get back...fine! but lets not say you cannot get good results....wrong!

Michael
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:04 am

I still Think KR64 sucks in less-than-perfect conditions, it just looks...  Crying
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:06 am

I still Think KR64 sucks in less-than-perfect conditions, it just looks

I think any film or any shot sucks in less-than-perfect conditions unless it's meant to be an "artsy" shot. If you're shooting a normal exterior aircraft shot, don't even bother shooting in less-than-perfect conditions..with K64, Fuji or the new mikechrome  Smile

Michael
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:08 am

eggd, so in other words youre saying that mine and other people who shoot kodachrome here on ainet in less than perfect conditions, our pics should be rejected alot- because as you say "KR64 sucks in less-than-perfect conditions" -do you see why i read what you write and i say to myself that this guy is not thinking before he writes?

Joe
 
psa188
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:18 am

Martin:

Kodachrome 64 offers the best combination of color and proven longevity of any slide film. The historic contrast is with Ektachrome, which historically is a bad film. Some of Bill Armstrong's photos on a.net were taken with Ektachrome and have faded badly. [For this reason, BA is now referred to as "Ektachrome Boy"]

The Fuji films don't have the longevity record as Kodachrome and for me arn't as faithful with color reproduction.

The best place to buy Kodachrome in B&H in NYC, it's just over $10 per roll with processing.
 
psa188
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:20 am

EGGD says "yucky in almost all conditions except sun fully on the a/c."

I say don't waste film on overcast days.
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:26 am

Joe..don't believe what you read..isn't that your famous line.

As if I had to tell you..Kodachrome is perfect in excellent conditions and holds up just fine in less-than-perfect-conditions:

Through windows:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



Night/sunset (no tripod):

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



Backlit shots:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



Weak sun/hazy:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



Michael



 
psa188
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:30 am

Staffan wrote:

"I've shot a few rolls of K64, found it rather tricky to get the exposure correct, most of the shots came out underexposed. If I used it more, results would improve, but waiting 3 weeks is ridiculous..."

My early Kodachromes were pretty awful too, and waiting 2-3 weeks can be a pain but remember good things happen to those who wait. Wouldn't you rather wait for quality than get instant results that might not be as good in the long run? Like you said, some of the faster results with Fuji are not as good. Don't let the thrill of instant gratification cloud your judgement.
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:31 am

I should quantify my statement "K64 refugee" what I meant by that was that I often a victim of their (Kodak's) increasingly slow and poor processing in the late 80s and early 90s. As a matter of fact I have a number of images on A.Net that were taken on K64 and K25. Koadachrome is indeed a fine film and like all slide films should be exposed carefully for it to achieve optimal results. Suffice it to say K64 really shines when under shot under sunny conditions as a few others in this thread have already pointed out. However, I have seen some really dramatic images with this film when it was used in less that perfect conditions.

Personally my big beef with Kodachrome is the 1-2 week wait for the results as well as the all too often medicore processing. Frankly if it were not for these 2 factors, I would probably still be using this film alongside Provia and Velvia.

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
psa188
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 11:40 am

EGGD goes on and on about K64 looking awful on cruddy days

See:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=211291

It was a cruddy day. Any film would produce awful results. Had I been in NYC I'd be asleep in the nice warm bed. But I was on the other side of the globe and it was my only chance to get an action shot of the Connie because I was flying back to the States that afternoon. But because I know how the film will perform I was able to get a result good enough to be accepted here. I agree with Mike's comments about becoming a better photographer and not looking for a cheap film that will work in bad weather.
 
Guest

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 12:25 pm

I can appreciate all the reasons for those who use and promote KR64.....in fact I may have some old slides from my KR64 days that are probably worth $$$'s...but I'll never know 'coz I don't trade and I've got no intention of starting.

Parallel: I've still got a fairly large collection of obsolete unbuilt Airfix and FROG etc plastic models up in the attic, some +40 years old....I won't be building them and I will never sell them either.
I used to trade in Airfix models during the 1980's when the firm went bust. Some obsolete kits went through the roof within a few months because the demand was enormous...What started as a hobby became a commercial 'part time job' searching out old kits and reselling them.....I lost the enjoyment and I've not built a model for at least 10 years now.
As noted earlier, those of us that are hobbyists do aviation photography for 'fun'. If were to take it so seriously, I would persist with KR64.....but like other ventures where a hobby turn commercial, I know I will lose the 'fun'.....

Gerry/EDI
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:11 pm

Gerry- i 120% disagree- example- today mclaughlin and i shot for the first time primo shots of aer lingus A330-200 EI-DAA. you should have seen us- like two kids who just got round trip tix to disneyland- we were like little children and we are grown adults with wives and kids. I still get a mega boner (figuratively not literally) when i shoot an airplane in perfect conditions and im mucho commercial as you know- so what you say is totally wrong in my eyes- if youve got it in you- youve got it in you and if it earns you a couple of bucks it doesnt make you lose the passion and anyone who tells you otherwise is dead wrong. I've been at this for 14 years and it is a hobby and a business but the love and the passion is always there and will always be there.

Joe
 
5280AGL
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 6:50 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:34 pm

Joe:

I completely agree with the fact that there is nothing wrong with making a few extra bucks on the side. But, you don't need Kodachrome to do so (unless you are a trader). Many magazines and other publications actually now prefer digital images to anything. But most of us don't have the bucks to spend on a D1X to get the professional digital images.
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 1:38 pm

5280,
yes you dont need kodachrome but between myself, mclaughlin and psa188 i think we've pretty much nailed it home why kodachrome helps you out. you have to make your own decisions with the facts you have before you. im telling you what i feel is right- if you think im incorrect thats ok, but i know what i feel is genuinly right and i do know what i talk about as ive been in this hobby a long time and have learned alot over the years.

JOe
 
rindt
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 3:08 pm

RE: Kodachrome 64 Users

Sun Jan 13, 2002 3:48 pm

It's this simple :

Shooting Kodachrome is like having the best of both worlds... not only do you get a high-quality slide for publications (whatever they may be), but you can also sell/trade/auction Kodachrome slides for a mint price as well... keeping in mind, you have to get a "bang-on" exposure with KR to get it right, so for the complainers, you ARE doing something wrong to receive dissatisfactory results...

OR...

You can shoot with a handicap... that is to say you shoot "XYZ" brand film. Your options pretty much end here if you plan on selling/trading slides. For the private shooters, it doesn't matter what film you shoot...

BUT, for those people that are "sitting on the fence" so to speak, why would you limit yourself to shooting the green stuff when the yellow stuff is worth that much more??? It just amazes me to see so many people shooting Fuji, knowing the consequences full-well, and not being able to accept the fact KR is the ONLY currency out there... full-stop, period, end of story.

-Rob
What other people think of you is none of your business!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dendrobatid and 2 guests