Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The May 2000 Practical Photography has a huge colour film test - K25 is judged "long in the tooth" - poor colours with magenta cast (good grain and sharpness, though) and K64 "good for portraits" - lack of saturation, bland colours (sharpness and grain excellent). My own experience is quite similar. In my 37 years of photography have lost only two films in transit - 2 Kodachromes and both at the same time. They contained some not repeatable images of stormy sea taken aboard a ship. I was not amused. All the best! Raimo photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Doug Cooper <visigoth@echonyc.com> Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Kopio: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Päivä: 01. kesäkuuta 2000 2:43 Aihe: [Leica] Re: Kodachrome > >Kodachrome seems to be have a serious following here, but I've yet to be >convinced. I shot gardens with K64 in Kyoto, and the colors were *dire* >relative to the same scenes shot with Velvia: muddy, with a distinct >green-brown bias. Reds were dull. It does seem about as sharp as Provia >F -- perhaps not quite -- but I vastly prefer the color balance in the new >Provia, if I'm seeking neutrality. For saturation, I'll shoot Velvia or >E100VS. > >I intend to take some K64 out in Manhattan, to see whether it's just the >bucolic stuff that it mangles, but I really don't like it much. (Is K25 >much different?) > > >Douglas Cooper > >