Ektachrome is back again !
Jan 9, 2017 11:25:30 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
NIKONADDICT wrote:
The colors in Ektachrome looked like the crayola factory exploded. The reds seemed to drip off of the acetate. The prints I have made with Ciba/Ilfochrome still look outstanding. Home processing (E-6) is a piece of cake at home.
you betcha! so much for the death of film photography.
Jan 9, 2017 11:34:12 #
Jan 9, 2017 11:36:33 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
Grandpa wrote:
The problem is, where do you get it processed?
heck! do it in your kitchen sink!
Jan 9, 2017 11:59:42 #
Before running out to buy those rolls of Ektachrome, be sure you know where to get it developed. Not too many places still do that. Home processing is not too hard, but you have to have the (simple) equipment and then get the chems for it. The prospect of using my F-1 again is alluring, but I don’t think I’ll be going back just for nostalgia.
Jan 9, 2017 12:01:08 #
My dad shot a lot of slide film in the 40s and 50s, mostly Kodachrome but occasionally Ektachrome. All of the old Kodachromes are still intact with a full range of brilliant colors. All of the Ektachromes have faded and taken on a very strong magenta cast. I'll dust off my film cameras when they re-release Kodachrome.
Jan 9, 2017 12:03:25 #
OK, this question is begging to be asked. What if I expose 35mm ektachrome and process the result to transparency. Then photo copy it with the DSLR to RAW? Aside from allowing me to use the old analog gear would there be any other advantage?
Jan 9, 2017 12:49:18 #
tnste
Loc: New Westminster, BC
David in Dallas wrote:
While the other Kodak slide film, Kodachrome® was ... (show quote)
When I got my first SLR Olympus OM-1 in the 70's I used Kodachrome 64 exclusively and loved the warm colour tones and fine grain giving great detail. I preferred it to any other film including Ektachrome and Fujichrome which I found were cooler. When Kodachrome was no longer available, I used fujichrome 100. The colour rendition was just as good if not better than Ektachrome but cheaper. I am not familiar with professional Ektachrome.
Jan 9, 2017 13:45:26 #
Ah, Kodachrome! I worked at Kodak (2 times). Certain images could not be sent through the mail, and were stored at Kodak if the user wanted to come and pick them up, but, when such was niticed, several of us would go down to the processing lab at look at them...
Jan 9, 2017 14:50:58 #
dzn1 wrote:
OK, this question is begging to be asked. What if I expose 35mm ektachrome and process the result to transparency. Then photo copy it with the DSLR to RAW? Aside from allowing me to use the old analog gear would there be any other advantage?
You are going to get a poorer image than if you shot with the DSLR to begin with and it cost you more money.
Jan 9, 2017 14:52:34 #
Why do you think Paul Simon wrote: "Mama(Kodak), please don't take my Kodachrome away" best natural color rendition.
Jan 9, 2017 14:52:54 #
Jan 9, 2017 16:12:33 #
Jan 9, 2017 16:18:49 #
NIKONADDICT wrote:
Any word on bringing back E-6 or did it ever get pulled?
Ektachrome, Fujichrome and other such films are all E-6 films. Kodachrome is the only recent still reversal film that is not E-6
Jan 9, 2017 18:11:13 #
So if DSLR is the better way to produce photos at least for 35mm/FF/crop format, what can be said about medium format? Is there an advantage of the emulsion over the smaller format digital?
Jan 9, 2017 18:15:12 #
dzn1 wrote:
So if DSLR is the better way to produce photos at least for 35mm/FF/crop format, what can be said about medium format? Is there an advantage of the emulsion over the smaller format digital?
Yes. The quality for the price point. Not to mention sharpness is not the only property of photography there are other properties that film gives the image.
My film large and medium format equipment was bought at pennies compared to digital medium format equipment.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.