Kodachrome 25: CanTodays Films Duplicate

[rguinter]

Greetings everyone: I've had my Epson film scanner for several years now and I've scanned most of my worthwhile LF and MF photos. Now looking at my (much older) 35mm work and I'm becoming nostalgic... I'm really starting to miss the color palette of the old Kodachrome 25 that I used extensively in the 80s and 90s.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion for a current film in LF that might come close to duplicating the old Kodachrome 25. I've used most of the Fuji transparency films and these produce beautiful images but nothing much like the old Kodachrome.

Suggestions anyone? Perhaps even a slide film cross processed in C-41 might work. I'm open to suggestions.

Cheers,

Bob G.

[SamReeves]

I think the problem lies in how Kodachrome is made and what gives it's sharpness. The current generation of E-6 films have a problem reproducing that.

If you can still find it on frozen auctions on eBay, I would say Agfa RSX-50 might be the one that could resemble the Kodachrome of old.

[Gordon Moat]

If you have not tried it yet, Fuji Astia 100F is probably the best film in 4x5 for very natural colour palette and high resolution. Kodak E100G is close, with a slightly different colour rendering, and same high resolution. In C-41 4x5 films, I know one prominent professional who uses only Kodak Portra 160NC, which might be another film for you to try out.

Kodachrome in 4x5 sizes is something that I don't think was ever around in my lifetime, though I have seen books that indicated shots made with such a thing. I think most Kodachrome was in 35mm size, so perhaps some of the look might be down to somewhat higher resolution lenses, or maybe the increased projection of the smaller image frame. Trying to match what you could do in 35mm with something in 4x5 might be a lesson in disappointment for most people.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[rguinter]

Thanks Sam. I never tried the Agfa but I'll keep my eye open for some. I guess this is another discontinued one. Regarding the grain I know what you mean. After scanning my old 35mm Kodachromes and expanding the images to fill my Viewsonic screen, I find the grain is only a bit more than my 6x9 MF Fujichromes. But actually it is the color palette I would like to reproduce. Nothing else I've used since has ever given me those soft almost pastel-like colors. A couple of my experiments with cross processing Vericolor have come close though. Cheers. Bob G.

[rguinter]

Gordon: I believe Ansel Adams did the original work proving-in Kodachrome in LF sizes. I've seen a book of his Kodachrome images and most of them are spectacular beyond description.

But the largest I was ever able to use was the PKR-120 which was an ISO 64 film and it did not have the same color rendering as the Kodachrome 25 had.

I find it hard to describe but to me its color palette is the best of any film I have ever used. Bob G.

[Gene McCluney]

Kodachrome WAS available in 4x5 starting during WW 2. I think Adams work, particularly for the Kodak Colorama Murals in Grand Central Station in NYC were done with early Kodak Color Negative materials.

[Frank Bagbey]

A Kodak rep told me once that he used to shoot Kodachrome in 8x10 and 5x7 and that it came in larger sizes than that, before they slit it and packaged in in more common sizes. I do know Arizona Highways used to reproduce 5x7 Kodachromes, but in those days the problems were with the offset printing. It was never as good as the transparency.

[rguinter]

Gordon: Forgot to mention in my last note. I tried Astia 2 years ago in MF when I was in Alaska. I found it too bland for my taste. And not much like the original Kodachrome 25 that I was asking about. Kodachrome 25 had a look all its own that I have never seen reproduced in any other film. One attached. Was it natural? Perhaps not completely. To my eye it had a pastel type of look. But it needed bright sunshine and a bit of underexposure to really show the palette I liked. I only tried Portra 160 once. I might try again with it though under better lighting conditions. Regards. Bob G.

[Merg Ross]

Kodachrome WAS available in 4x5 starting during WW 2. I think Adams work, particularly for the Kodak Colorama Murals in Grand Central Station in NYC were done with early Kodak Color Negative materials.

Kodachrome sheet was available in sizes up to 16x20. It was discontinued shortly after the introduction of Ektachrome, which was in 1946.

Gene, that is my understanding about the Adams Grand Central Station murals.

Bob, sorry for contributing nothing other than trivia to your query.

[rguinter]

Merg: No worries. Nothing objectionable about trivia as far as I'm concerned. I read up on Kodachrome in the mid 1990s and learned a bit about its history at that time. Although I'm sure the facts by now have faded a bit in my aging brain. That's when I saw the book of Ansel Adams Kodachrome photos. But even so I'm not quite old enough to have tried it in LF. The colors in Ansel's photos (at least the way they were reproduced in the book and the way I remember them) to my mind were nearly identical with the look of Kodachrome 25 which had quite a following with the 35mm crowd up until Fuji Velvia came on the scene. Anyway, as I said earlier in the thread, I was becoming nostalgic this weekend as I scanned a hundred or so of my old 35mm slides. They have a look that I would like to be able to do again.

[Gordon Moat]

Definitely in 4x5 colour film choices you are very limited, though over exposing or under exposing various films might lead you to something you want to use. The short answer is that no film will match Kodachrome 25 in colour. So the path you may want to follow would be to find something else that you like in colour rendition.

[Hal Hardy]

The short answer is that no film will match Kodachrome 25 in colour.
For sure.

Another quality of Kodachrome is its life span. I have Kodachromes that my father shot in the early '60s. They look like they were shot yesterday while all of his Ektachromes are fading badly.

[SamReeves]

Kodachrome sheet was available in sizes up to 16x20. It was discontinued shortly after the introduction of Ektachrome, which was in 1946.

Can you imagine tray processing Kodachrome in sheet sizes? Get your gas masks out! LOL.

[Mike1234]

I believe the yellow die used in the Kodachrome process is quite deadly, isn't it? Dip your fingers in and you're dead?

[Mark Sampson]

I don't know about the toxicity of the yellow dye, of either the early Kodachromme process or the current K-14. But the process is very complex and thrives on volume. On no evidence, I think one of the reasons sheet Kodachrome went away was that the (enormous) processing machines Kodak built as sales went up after WWII were made to handle spliced-together long rolls of 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm, all with sprocket holes.

[Merg Ross]

Kodachrome was introduced in 1936 and the sheet version gave way to Ektachrome about 1947. The beauty of Ektachrome, was the quick turnaround time for professional photographers. An afternoon shoot could result in a transparency by evening, the film being processed by the photographer. Kodachrome could only be processed by a Kodak lab.

My father, when he was shooting 8x10 transparency for the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency, was almost always working with deadlines. Many of his assignments were received in the late afternoon with the Art Director requesting transparencies the next morning. Meeting these deadlines was only possible with Ektachrome.

Of course, the color rendition of Kodachrome was unrivaled, and it had a long life as a motion picture and 35mm cosumer film. We know now that it was far more stable than Ektachrome, however, stability was not always a concern of the professional photographer.

[rguinter]

I believe the yellow die used in the Kodachrome process is quite deadly, isn't it? Dip your fingers in and you're dead?

Does anybody know what chemical compounds the dyes were?

[Toyon]

Does anybody know what chemical compounds the dyes were?

Yellow die certainly sounds deadly!

[Mike1234]

^^^ That's what I was told many years ago but I've been searching and can't find a shred of information about that. I was wrong. Happens all the time these days. :confused:

[srbphoto]

If I remember correctly (instead of going downstairs and getting the book :) When they were picking out the images for Ansel's color book they said that the Kodachromes were beautiful but the Ektachromes had discolored.

[patrickjames]

In the late 90's someone (I can't remember if it was Kodak, maybe someone here can) designed a small Kodachrome processor. I don't think it was successful, obviously.

If you are taking your images through the computer anyway you can profile your way into a Kodachrome look if you have the know how. I have been thinking of doing similar things myself since I am able to, but I rarely shoot color so I haven't invested any time into it.

[rguinter]

^^^ That's what I was told many years ago but I've been searching and can't find a shred of information about that. I was wrong. Happens all the time these days. :confused:

Someone must know what the chemical dyes are. For the yellow I would suspect one of the hexavalent chromium compounds and yes, chrome VI compounds are very toxic and can be absorbed through the skin. Bob G.

[Mark Sampson]

Those of us interested in details of the Kodachrome process should try contacting 'Photo Engineer' over at APUG.

[mrladewig]

I haven't shot much kodakchrome myself, but I would think E100G with a light warming filter might be your best bet in 4X5 to match it. It has a bit more punch in saturated colors than Astia, but the neutrals and skin tones remain excellent.

[rguinter]

I haven't shot much kodakchrome myself, but I would think E100G with a light warming filter might be your best bet in 4X5 to match it. It has a bit more punch in saturated colors than Astia, but the neutrals and skin tones remain excellent.
Thanks for the suggestion. OK I may try that. I've used E100VG and the color palette is far too saturated. K-25 colors were exceptionally bright but not saturated. If I had to describe them in common language I would say they are somewhat pastel. Bob G.

[rguinter]

Those of us interested in details of the Kodachrome process should try contacting 'Photo Engineer' over at APUG.


Mark: That wasn't my original intent when starting this thread but I might do that out of curiosity. My profession is Industrial Hygiene in which I deal predominantly with chemical safety. So naturally the chemistry of photographic materials holds my interest. Cheers. Bob G.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

In transparency material that's also available in LF sheet films, Astia 100F is closer to Kodachrome than anything else. By that I mean K64, which had a more accurate palette and a longer tonal range into the shadows than any other transparency film I've used. Astia has much better grain structure, slightly less accutance. If you're doing a hybrid workflow, punchier color isn't even an issue, just find a curve/saturation level and degree of sharpening you like and make it part of your workflow.

Ektar 100 in 120 seems very close in color palette to Kodachrome 25. The earlier ISO 25 version was originally intended to replace it. The ISO 100 version has much better lattitude and dynamic range though, and even though more narrow than some print films, it still creams transparency films in lattitude. Very Kodak-y in signature.

[rguinter]

Ivan: I've shot a lot of Ektar 100 and Ektar 25 and yes I agree there is a strong similarity to Kodachrome 64. And I still have a lot of both left in my freezer. But Kodachrome 25 was so much different than the 64 and although I never used any of the Kodachrome 200 from the photos I've seen that emulsion was significantly different than the 64 also. I may try Astia again in 4x5 as you are the second to recommend it. I admit trying several rolls of it two years ago but perhaps the light was not ideal for making it show its true colors. Cheers. Bob G.

[Nathan Potter]

I use 4X5 Astia as a substitute for Kodachrome 35 mm. There are some similarities in the color but the grain structure is not the same. The great acutance (qualitativly the sharpness of the transition from a grain to an adjacent region, see SPIE p. 958) of Kodachrome really can't be matched simply due to the way the film was produced. I don't know of any substitute from a grain consideration. A moderate power conformal microscope will show the significant grain structure difference between Kodachrome and Fuji Astia films.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rguinter]

Nate: Yes it's the color palette I perceived to be the best aspect of the old K-25 and you are the third to recommend Astia for a current comparative film. So I'm ordering some in 4x5 sheets to try. And of course I had noticed years back that the grain of K-25 was different from any other 35mm film I had used. The few 8x10-inch prints I had made from my slides in those days were exceptionally sharp and relatively grain free. Thanks. Bob G.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't think Astia resembles Kodachrome at all, except in the neutrality of the midtones. Kodachrome was much higher contrast and printed quite differently. I loved
the stuff, especially during its short representation as a 120 film. But since I'm primarily
a large-format shooter, its demise is not going to affect me a lot. With PS you can
boost the saturation of Astia, but it just doesn't have the same look in my opinion.
But in its own right, Astia is one of my favorite sheet films, and I just wish it was easier to acquire in 8X10.

[rguinter]

Drew: OK thanks for your comments. Three previous readers suggested I try Astia so I ordered a box. I did use a few rolls of it while visiting friends in Alaska summer before last in 120. And I didn't like the look. I did not think to compare it to Kodachrome and, at least the few 120 frames I shot, did not resemble K-25 in the least if I remember.

Perhaps most LF photographers here never shot K-25 or remember the look to be able to compare. Frankly with all the hundreds and hundreds of 120 and 4x5 frames I've shot over the years there has never been another film I've found to resemble the K-25 in color palette. Perhaps it was unique and will never be duplicated. I don't know. But it is totally against my religion to doctor the colors of my film scans with Photoshop. I'm an old fogie and very old fashioned in my photography as well as other things.

Regards. Bob G.

[Nathan Potter]

Bob G., I didn't mean to imply that you'll find an equivalent to Kodachrome film, either in color palette or texture, but maybe the closest you can come is with Fuji Astia. I think Drew has a good point in the neutrality of the midtones if I look again at my recent sensitometric curves (Jun 09).

I'm looking at recent chromes done by Praus of Velvia 50 and Astia 100 and the highlight toes of the sensitometric curves are very similar at rated ASA but the shadow shoulders are quite distinctive. The velvia 50 has no shoulder but rockets linearly straight up past logD 3.0 while Astia 100 starts to level off at logD 2.25 and is near asymtotic to a maximum at log 2.75 density. So the low light capability of the Velvia 50 will be superior to the Velvia 100 if given enough exposure. That is to say that darn second derivative d^2D/dE^2 at the low light end is much more useful with Velvia 50 than with Astia 100, but of course to make use of it you'll blow the highlights for any subject range exceeding about 4 f/stops. Midrange the slopes (gammas) are about equivalent, which I think is what Brian eluded to. That very high contrast feature of Kodachrome is more consistent with Velvia 50 than with Astia 100 but for me the closest you'll come to the "midrange" color palette is probably with Astia 100.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rguinter]

Nate:

My goodness all that math. It was such fun doing all that back in the 80s... engineering physics IV with Einstein's theory of relativity right at chapter 1. And to think I ground through all that and enjoyed it at the time. I probably still would but today the highest math I have to do usually involves basic algebra. So the bottom line is I rarely think of asymptotes and 2nd derivatives when taking photos.

But the comments about Astia seem on the mark for all who mentioned it and I'll be testing it out when my order arrives. I bought a box of 50-sheets so there should be enough for me to get some nice comparisons. I also took all my RAP 120 out of the deep freeze to thaw that I've had in there for a couple of years.

I went back and looked through the few Astia frames I took in Summer 2007 and scanned one which is attached here. It's a photo of Chughach Mtn in Alaska. At the time I didn't look at it too closely but now I am seeing the color resemblance to the old KR-25. The Kodachrome attachment was taken many years before on top of Mt. Washington so I'm guessing they were both done at similar altitudes. I see certainly the blues and greens have a strong similarity. Not enough red or yellow in the Astia to do a really good comparison.

So anyway, thanks again for reminding me about the Astia that I put aside.

Cheers,

Bob G.

[Nathan Potter]

Bob, seems like a pretty good comparison of color and I think I notice a bit of pink similarity in the clouds. I certainly recognize some of the junk on top of Mt. Washington. My post was just following your comment "In god we trust, all others bring data"; so I thought I would. To me data is sacrosanct.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rguinter]

Bob, seems like a pretty good comparison of color and I think I notice a bit of pink similarity in the clouds. I certainly recognize some of the junk on top of Mt. Washington. My post was just following your comment "In god we trust, all others bring data"; so I thought I would. To me data is sacrosanct.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate: I appreciate the data and I haven't studied the concept of sensitometric curves. so now I plan to review it. Perhaps something I should have looked at some time ago. Thanks for the tip. Bob G.

[David Luttmann]

Kodachrome WAS available in 4x5 starting during WW 2. I think Adams work, particularly for the Kodak Colorama Murals in Grand Central Station in NYC were done with early Kodak Color Negative materials.

I just recently picked up a book that highlights Ansel's color work. In it are photographs from 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 Kodachrome is memory serves.

I'd say Astia is indeed the best color match. That, coupled with Astia's finer grain should work as a reasonable substitute for K25.

[mrladewig]

Having shot with both Astia and E100G, (and KR64 not 25) Astia seems to be a good match in the blues and neutrals, but the red and yellow on Astia are pretty flat in my experience. E100G is an equal match on the neutrals and the red and yellow have a stronger signature, but I think the blue may be too strong and magenta too weak.

E100G, no filters
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2358-1/45_E1G_20091112_003_2030.jpg


RMS grainularity measurement seems to vary between manufacturers a bit. Fuji rates Astia at 7 and Kodak rates E100G at 8. In practical application, I can't tell any difference in the grain between these two extremely fine grained films. I know Fuji is the dominant player in slide film these days, but E100G is a very competent film. I use all of the 4X5 slide films, which one depends on the situation.

[Drew Wiley]

I find Astia and E100G to be very different in hue as well as exposure range. I shoot
both in LF. I require polyester film base for registration puposes, so use E100G as my
mid-contrast or "normal" color film. Astia has lower contrast, plus I use it in the lab for
dupes (works better than official duplicating film). Velvia, or course, is on the high end
of contrast and saturation, but I rarely use it in 8x10. Kodachrome 25 and 64 were more similar to each other, though 25 was my favorite. I still have a lot of old slides
but will probably never print them.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Besides accutance, what I loved best about Kodachrome, both K25 and K64, was that when shooting to hold the highlights/shadows be damned, the shadows often went really and truly BLACK. (Velvia and Astia and Kodak E6 have muddier shadows). Might have had something to do with Kodachrome being essentially 4 layers of B&W film until it was processed when the dyes were introduced, IIRC.

But I find Astia to have more subtlety in the shadows by far than Velvia or K25. Though if I weren't shooting nowadays for hybrid workflow, I'd be complaining that Astia colors get a bit goofily yellow-brown down in the toe, but this is easily corrected in PP.

K64 was more accurate color-wise in the case of low-key work. I've also got a few K64 transparencies with exceedingly difficult 10-stop range that hold detail in both shadow and highlight. I just couldn't do much with slides like these (even with unsharp masking on Pan Masking film) until I got a really great 16-bit film scanner and started working with them in PP.

The issue with Kodachrome 64 in recent years wasn't that I couldn't use it and get results for my wildlife and 35mm macro work, but that the grain was so objectionable from inconsistent processing it prompted me to start doing my own E6. (Too, with subject matter like landscapes and night photography, Kodachrome always suffered from reciprocity beyond about a second, a realm where E6 films are greatly superior.)

[rguinter]

Having shot with both Astia and E100G, (and KR64 not 25) Astia seems to be a good match in the blues and neutrals, but the red and yellow on Astia are pretty flat in my experience. E100G is an equal match on the neutrals and the red and yellow have a stronger signature, but I think the blue may be too strong and magenta too weak.

E100G, no filters

This is indeed a beautiful photo and I see many color similarities to my old Kodachrome slides. The foreground colors red, brown, yellow, gold, etc. are all reminiscent. About the only color in this slide that doesn't seem to fit is the blue sky. I never got this intense blue with my KR-25. It's a bit too saturated. Given that I live in the congested East I find it remarkable that you were able to shoot this scene without a filter of any kind. I almost always need at least a graduated ND to darken the skies a bit and even out the lighting. You're making me want to quit my day job and travel out West.

My box of Astia came in the mail today... so I guess I'll have to get some E100G and try that too.

Another of my old Kodachrome slides for comparison. This one shot on PKR-120 with my Widelux 1500 many years ago. A local scene. Bob G.

[Drew Wiley]

Speaking of saturated skies, back in the 60's my older brother submitted a print to a juried exhibition in Los Angeles under the Nature Photography category. It was printed from old-style 4x5 Agfachrome onto ordinary Type C paper via an interneg. This was obviously long before the days of Photoshop. But they accused him of doctoring the print anyway, and threw him out of the competition. I was a bit astounded, because to my eye, having grown up in the Sierras, the sky didn't look
all that blue at all. But down in LA in those years, anything but a dirty brown sky must have seemed inconceivable.

[Renato Tonelli]

I picked up on this post a bit late. I have been struggling to find a replacement to Kodachrome 64 and similar look for my 4x5. I settled on Astia 100F but I am not completely happy with the blacks. I am encouraged by the comments on Kodak's E100G and will have to try it out when my stash of Astia 100F QL's runs out.
I also have been doing a fair amount of Ilfochrome printing and Kodachrome was a great match for it.

Finally, I have to say (again!) that this forum and the people who participate are really, really great!

[Nathan Potter]

Renato, you've found exactly what I mentioned earlier in this thread. The shoulder (shadow) of Astia saturates at about Log D 2.5 which limits the depth of black one can get with Ilfochrome unless one moves too far up from B + F, which can then lose some highlight textures. It's applying the zone system to a positive to positive system. For Ilfochrome to really snap you need the absolute blacks somewhere in the print but at the same time maintain highlight texture. I find sometimes Velvia 50 is a better fit if the original tranny was properly exposed (say 4 EV range or less in the original scene). Astia images can be handled by light highlight masks which then allow pushing into a deeper black during the enlarging process. I have no experience with E100G but may want to fiddle with that also.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

Renato, E100G gets along with Ciba very nicely. The greens are a little cooler than
with Fuji film, but not contaminated with red like the old-style Ektachrome 64. You
have to be a little more careful with long distance shots and UV at high altitude. But
otherwise, not much different than printing from Astia. Never had a problem with
either of them getting a rich black, since I match the film to the specific contrast in the scene; but E100G obviously has a little higher contrast. For contrast masks which incorporate the best hue correction for this film, I most often use a #34 magenta or #33 violet; and unless the contrast mask comes out stronger than .60, rarely need a highlight mask.

[Renato Tonelli]

Nathan and Drew - thanks for the tips. I will most likely standardize on either the Astia 100F or the E100G; I am not a huge fan of exaggerated color saturation for my own color images.

[Hal Reiser]

After my stash of K25 ran out in 2006 I tried both Provia F and E100S. I wasn't too thrilled with either. When E 100G came out I standardized. Of all the E-6 films I tested that seemed to be the closest in my eyes.

Sam, Nice shot of the GP-40's on the trestle. What Ex-SP branch was that?

[rguinter]

I'll keep this thread alive a bit longer. Thanks to all who provided suggestions for duplicating Kodachrome colors. To those who suggested Astia (i.e., RAP) I can only say that, after shooting about 10-15 sheets of it, my original opinion hasn't changed. I didn't like it at all when I shot it in 120 two years ago for the first time and I still don't.

To me it looks nothing at all like the old Kodchrome colors I tried to describe. In fact, for my typical use it is perhaps one of the poorest films I've ever used. My favorite time of day for photos is sunset (occasionally sunrise) and its performance at these hours is exceptionally bland. Kodachrome colors were brilliant pastel orange and reds at these times and RVP, RDP Fujichromes are equally brilliant with greater saturation and very strong blues. Not so with the RAP.

So unless I find a better use for it I think I'll pass on buying any more when my box is gone. Perhaps it will perform better at mid-day with stronger sunlight and I can use it there.

To those that suggested one of the Ektachromes I intend to buy a new box and try that one next. And any additional suggestions would be welcome.

Cheers. Bob G.

[Pawlowski6132]

I have two frozen rolls of Kodachrome. One is K64 and one is either K64 or K25. I'll never use 'em and will probably end up throwing them away once Duane's stops processing this after this year.

Anyone have anything interesting to trade of equal or grater value (whatever that is?)

Joe

[Robert Hughes]

I have two frozen rolls of Kodachrome. One is K64 and one is either K64 or K25. I'll never use 'em and will probably end up throwing them away once Duane's stops processing this after this year.

Anyone have anything interesting to trade of equal or grater value (whatever that is?)

Joe
I think I've got a couple 2 year old frozen fish in the freezer. We can trade, even up!

[Pawlowski6132]

I think I've got a couple 2 year old frozen fish in the freezer. We can trade, even up!

What kind?

[Drew Wiley]

I still have a roll of 120 Kodachrome in the freezer. Kept it just for the hell of it. Might
be worth a lot of money someday to career frozen undevelopable film collectors!

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I still have a roll of 120 Kodachrome in the freezer. Kept it just for the hell of it. Might
be worth a lot of money someday to career frozen undevelopable film collectors!

I have most of a brick of still frozen KP64-120. If only I could get it processed. I think the last run of 120 was about 8 or 10 years ago in England.

[rguinter]

Yes me too. I have a brick of it in 120 left in the freezer. Frankly, some of the finest images I've ever made in MF and SF are Kodachromes. It had some quirks like all films do but once you got used to them its performance was predictable and beautiful. I guess perhaps my reason for becoming nostalgic and wanting to come close to duplicating it with something newer in LF.

I also have half a dozen or so K-25 and K-64 left. Perhaps I'll use a few before Dwayne's pulls the plug. A few more examples attached. Bob G.

[Gordon Moat]

I'll keep this thread alive a bit longer. Thanks to all who provided suggestions for duplicating Kodachrome colors. To those who suggested Astia (i.e., RAP) I can only say that, after shooting about 10-15 sheets of it, my original opinion hasn't changed. I didn't like it at all when I shot it in 120 two years ago for the first time and I still don't.

To me it looks nothing at all like the old Kodchrome colors I tried to describe. In fact, for my typical use it is perhaps one of the poorest films I've ever used. My favorite time of day for photos is sunset (occasionally sunrise) and its performance at these hours is exceptionally bland. Kodachrome colors were brilliant pastel orange and reds at these times and RVP, RDP Fujichromes are equally brilliant with greater saturation and very strong blues. Not so with the RAP.

So unless I find a better use for it I think I'll pass on buying any more when my box is gone. Perhaps it will perform better at mid-day with stronger sunlight and I can use it there.

To those that suggested one of the Ektachromes I intend to buy a new box and try that one next. And any additional suggestions would be welcome.

Cheers. Bob G.

The film I use at sunset, blue hour, or night, is Kodak E100VS. If you don't like the saturation that much, I would suggest over-exposing by 1/3 stop.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[rguinter]

The film I use at sunset, blue hour, or night, is Kodak E100VS. If you don't like the saturation that much, I would suggest over-exposing by 1/3 stop.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Gordon: You are absolutely right on that. I use it sometimes for that application with 617 format and the pictures are very nice. It did a nice job for me on a recent trip to NYC as you can see.

It's super-saturation during the day is a bit much for me though and I haven't found any way to make it simulate Kodachrome. Cheers. Bob G.

[paulr]

We found a box of my grandmother's Kodachromes from 1939. It was amazing, and kind of spooky ... I'm used to thinking that the world back then existed only in black and white, or in some kind of old-timey color palette. To see it looking precisely like today (at least it seemed so ... this was in the 80s and the kodachrome palette was still familiar) was pretty amazing. My handsome young grandfather trying to look studious and authoritarian with his pipe and bath robe, close enough to touch ...

[Drew Wiley]

The sad fact of life is that Kodachrome CAN'T be duplicated by any E-6 film. It was
just another kind of animal altogether. You could pick one or two particular features
of it and find something analogous in a present film, but overall, we just have to learn things over again (or over and over and over, because film selection is always
changing). But E-6 films have dramatically improved since the heyday of Kodachrome, which I gave up way back when I switched mainly to large format.

[rguinter]

The sad fact of life is that Kodachrome CAN'T be duplicated by any E-6 film. It was
just another kind of animal altogether...

Drew: After starting this thread with less than high hopes, and following it through, and trying numerous other color films (underexposed, overexposed, cross-processed, etc.) I tend to agree with you.

Sometimes I can get the colors but not the grain. Sometimes the grain and not the colors. More often than not I can get a few of the colors but not the overall palette. I see this frequently with cross-processing or in the color shifts with long exposures.

But it didn't hurt to ask and I got some good suggestions for other trials.

Cheers. Bob G.