As I mentioned awhile back, Kodachrome is nearing the end. After December, Dwayne’s (the only lab still processing Kodachrome) plans to quit offering Kodachrome development.
I’ve got a stash of Kodachrome that I’ve been very selective with. Because of that, it’s taken awhile to use. However, the results have been stunning. This is my favorite shot off the first roll that I just got back:
Unfortunately, the scan doesn’t come anywhere near to the experience of seeing this on a light table. The warm tones that Kodachrome handles so well just jump out of the photo!
I’m really going to miss this film after December.
Maybe you should process your own. I did that years ago, before the switch to digital. Home processing can be laborious and difficult, but well worth the effort. Precise temperature control seems to be the most demanding aspect of the process. It becomes easier as you develop a set of standard, repeatable steps. In my own experience, though, I found nothing in film that couldn’t be done better in digital. Easier, too. But that is just me.
LOL…you probably won’t find a bigger digital advocate than me. Reverting back to Kodachrome was just kind of a last huzzah before I can’t anymore. And home developing isn’t possible with the K-14 process. There’s only one place in the world where one can process Kodachrome right now – Dwayne’s in Kansas. Alas, they quit processing at the end of December.
Even after the end, though, I think I’ll still shoot some chromes from time to time, though. There’s something beautiful about the clunk of a mechanical shutter, and the big bright viewfinders of film cameras. And when the slides come back and are lit up on the light table…there’s nothing that can compare to that!
I’ve tried to take sunrise/sunset pictures that have similar color, and the colors always come out way oversaturated to the point of looking fake. And for some reason I cannot seem to tone down the problem.
Any thoughts? (I use a Nikon D300 with all in-camera prossing turned off (no saturation, neutral, ISO200)) and a Nikkor 16-85 F3.5 lens.
Because of their humungous tonal range, Kodachrome slides are difficult to scan well. At a minimum, you have to scan at 16-bit depth, and even then, with lots of post-processing, it’s hard to get everything out of it you can see by transmission.
It’s kind of like making a Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome) print from one in the darkroom. Lots of dodge and burn to get something even close to what you can see, though if you get it right, the print is stunning.
I can only imagine what you see on the box, though., but it’s fun trying.
I know that there is a quality to analog stereo speakers of old that some say is unmatched today. It is probably so to those who have enjoyed the last great films produced, and surely not without justification. However, and I hope I don’t transgress by doing this, but I took the image below at sunset locally two years ago with a Powershot A710is and you see it (more or less) as it was recorded, stored, uploaded to photobucket, and now viewed on your screens with their various settings and engineering. No processing other than what is required by the various systems and servers.
To me, a 5 MP camera is going to yield a very good photo within certain bounds…of course. I have successfully expanded a simple sunrise over water image to a 30 X 24 print, now framed under glass, that is simply stunning. I expect the improvements to continue to the point where 99.99% of all critics can’t tell you the difference between colour film and digital…and they may even eventually be able to tell when digital surpasses analog by a noticeable margin.
Jim - I’m wondering if you’re getting some channel clipping. You should be able to switch your Histogram to an RGB mode that will let you watch the individual color channels. Watch the red channel especially so that it doesn’t blow out on you while shooting sunrise/set shots.
Victrola - I love my digital cameras and they allow me to do things I couldn’t dream of with film (getting usable shots at ISO 6400, for example), but you’re definitely right about the big film thing. I shoot large format from time to time and the results from it are absolutely astounding. I suppose the best Medium Format Digitals are getting close to that quality…but few of us have the $50K it would take to get such a system. A good, used 4x5 film camera can be found for under $1000 and produce eye-popping results.
Chuck - One of these days I should really just invest in a decent scanner. There are custom Kodachrome profiles that work well with top end scanners to actually give a decent scan. I just read a review on the PlusTek 7600i that looks like a decent little scanner for $500. I might have to check that out.
Crandell - I hear what you’re saying, and for most users I’ll agree. And as proof of concept, I offer the fact that 95% or better of my shooting is digital. But there will always be parts of shooting film that are pleasing to me, even if digital might be “better.” For instance, in cases, I really, really like the look of film grain. Kodachrome 64, for example, is grainy but it’s beautiful grain to me. I love the look of Kodachrome 64’s grain structure. And no matter how good, no monitor or print can even come close to the eye-popping display of a well exposed chrome on a light table. I saw a fellow photographer showing off 8x10s on his light table one day and my jaw just about hit the floor. Nothing, absolutely nothing I’ve seen from the digital age can yet come close to that.
