Re: Frame 39 (was Re: born again)

[Mike Gardner <mikeg@neca.com>]

Charles E. Love, Jr. wrote:

> I'm glad to hear this, though my frustration with the lousy processing and
> the poor quality control on Kodachrome caused me to shop around, and I now use Velvia and Provia for my landscape work.
I have used Provia for commercial work in 120, 4x5 and some 35mm with a
great deal of success.  Sharp, good color, good shadow detail.  Velvia
can be beautiful but as Marc says, better under low contrast conditions.
It definitely can get garish if not given extra exposure- depending on
lighting, I rate it at EI 32 or 40.

> May be, although they had a number of labs in locations other than
> Rochester, so I don't see why they would have had to give it up.
I'm sure Marc may be better informed re divesting the processing
business, However I do recall Kodak took some heavy hits from the feds
as a result of pollution from years of film manufacturing in Rochester,
not just the film processing. 

> Well, I ran a lot through mine (use MF more now).  Do you think there's some special color balance issue that makes this true (i.e., do Leica lenses have some special quality that works best with Kodachrome)?

Well, you have to watch how this is  phrased or there'll be another rash
of "glow" sightings!  I have shot a lot of Kodachrome 25 in Leica R's
and find with the right light conditions the slides will almost look
3D when viewed, particularly with cloud formations in the scene.
Definitely has something to do with the glass I'm sure. Speculation on
my part, but perhaps the rich color rendition of the Leica glass, the
sharpness and the sharp edge definition of Kodachrome make the right
combination.  Oddly enough in the M, I rather prefer the Kodachrome 64.
I use the Summicron 50 m and 35 m.  Overall I would say I can make
"better" photos under a wider range of lighting conditions with either
Leica sytem with Kodachrome than other films. (I'm speaking here of
outdoor photography, primarily)
Mike Gardner