Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html> <head> <style type=3D"text/css"> </style> <title> Re: [Leica] Some film questions </title> </head> <body> <div></div> <div><br> > Kodak was nice enough to send a few rolls. Can't decide whether to<br> >shoot this film or Kodachrome on impending trip to Paris. Processing<br> >turnaround is not an issue so I tend to shoot the Kodachrome for its<br> >archivalness. But the grain and shadow detail and contrast range of this<br> >film were so amazing I might have to load a body with it and push it to<br> >400. LUG thoughts are welcomed.<br> ><br> >Carl s.</div> <div>Hi Carl,</div> <div><br></div> <div>Would you care to confirm wether the Kodachrome you are referring to</div> <div>is the ISO 200 (versus the Kodachrome 64 (or 100, or 25) -- my preferred emulsion because of it's "ARCHIVALNESS"</div> <div>(never saw that word before but that sure is what</div> <div>it is -- colors don't degrade over more than 30 years -- at least using</div> <div>a simple metal slide box or, even, Kodak Carousel slide trays stored</div> <div>in my student's big "luggage" (I don't know the English word - about 2' x 2' x 4' "truckable" "storage") in an average basement (not humid).</div> <div><br></div> <div>I sure can appreciate "good old" Ektachrome 64, too, but I get a higher "high"</div> <div>from personal slide shows using Kodachrome 64 over others... with a screen size about 7' - 8' diagonal, seldom more for the last few years. (There was a time</div> <div>I used a 12' diagonal sized area on a matte white wall, at the limit of my</div> <div>lens' and projector performance... An Ektagraphic 9000 is an object of desire</div> <div>to me, very much so. A "remote controlled" drop-from-the-ceiling beaded</div> <div>8' to 12' diagonal high reflectance screen would be nirvana: next incarnation!)</div> <div><br></div> <div>I've, obviously, tried the Fuji stuff, but there's something missing</div> <div>to my eye -- probably a sacrilege to say so -- + have not tried the few new emulsions that came out in the last 4 - 6 months which,</div> <div>perhaps, may have "what it takes"</div> <div>to get me excited.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I just wish there was a C41 emulsion that does what Kodachrome 64 does,</div> <div>which I would try to convey with the expression "the thickness of things"...</div> <div>way beyond saturation, resolution, grain structure (especially the out of</div> <div>focus areas), color range (I'm a flowers nut...), edge definition (acutance),</div> <div>skin tone accuracy, and, with some lenses, shadow detail.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I also have never had a washed out "high range" area with Kodachrome,</div> <div>usually 64, and never any "halo" unwanted effect, obviously.</div> <div><br></div> <div><font color=3D"#FF0000">PREDICTABILITY</font> is never an issue with Kodachrome, by experience.</div> <div><br></div> <div>With Ektachrome, there's always the fear that the processor's chemistry will</div> <div>not have been properly replenished, and wasting, or just about,</div> <div>even one shot, to such an occurance is a total turn-off for me:</div> <div>I've lost rolls of some of the most magnificent shots I have ever done</div> <div>to this and I've decided that such would never be the case anymore.</div> <div>Done right, though, Ektachrome's "brilliant" quality,</div> <div>especially with bright blues and yellows, if that's what one likes,</div> <div>is a magnificent product: I'd tend to use it for architectural</div> <div>style photography (and controlled lighting studio work),</div> <div>IF there was no Kodachrome available: it's "you are there" quality</div> <div>is without equal, especially with extra-saturated polarized shots</div> <div>of the urban jungle.</div> <div><br></div> <div>For high speed, usually for other people,</div> <div>I tend to use ISO 400 or ISO 1000 Kodak emulsions, not pushed,</div> <div>with outstanding results, if N-O-T ENLARGED. Kodak Royal Gold ISO 100</div> <div>is what I go for most of the time for other people. Vericolor VPS</div> <div>is NOT available locally below 20 rolls (that's one good product!),</div> <div>and "special deals" on Royal Gold 100 (and "fresh" stock)</div> <div>shift the emphasis...</div> <div><br></div> <div>Grain based "creative effects" is something I don't buy into.</div> <div>And I've been dealing with an out of town C41 lab that, at last,</div> <div>uses decent lenses and really knows what color balance is about:</div> <div>they actually put out a glossy print that has a "transparent" quality</div> <div>to it.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I suppose many reading this will think I should "work out" Fuji's</div> <div>Super G 800 Plus and NEW Reala (plus Astia), but I have yet to</div> <div>find someone who will be able to certify no color "roll-off"</div> <div>over a few years (let alone a 25 year "archive" test)...</div> <div>And yes, I'm aware of their upside qualities.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I tend, as a general final statement, to enjoy my photo work</div> <div>mostly by myself, rather than go about with a stack of 4" x 6" s...</div> <div>(anything below 5" x 7" feels like a "squeeze"...), nor do I "exhibit",</div> <div>for the time being.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Another emulsion I appreciate is Agfa reversal: it's often</div> <div>a worthy tool, and discoloration is not an issue, if my old CT-18</div> <div>shots are of any value. Agfa RSX is an under rated product, seems to me.</div> <div><br></div> <div>If only I could find a Leica or Carl Zeiss Planar projection lens for my</div> <div>Kodak projector ... ! (And the money it takes!)</div> <div><br></div> <div>All the Best !</div> <div><br></div> <div>Andr=E9 Jean Quintal</div> <div><br></div> <div>PS: My all-time "TOP" lens is a 1967 Carl Zeiss Distagon 25mm/Contarex.</div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab>My "most used" camera is a 1977 Rollei 35 "babycam"...</div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab>No, I haven't tried the Canon TSE-24 PC: that bugs me, though.</div> <div><x-tab> </x-tab></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br> </div> </body> </html>