Talk:Kodachrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

It's said that Kodachrome was invented by God and Man: Leopold Godowsky and Leopold Mannes (if memory serves). Worth mentioning. Does anybody have the facts?

Godowsky (violin) & Mannes (piano) were professional musicians who from 1920 on experimented with methods of colour photography. Kodak gave help with emulsions etc, and in 1930 when their experiments were sufficiently advanced, brought them on the Kodak staff. See color photography for Coe's book which has details on the many 20th C colour processes predating Kodachrome. 80.177.213.144

Alan Kattelle, 'Home Movies: The History of an American Industry' (Nashua, NH: Transition Publishing, 2000) has an extensive account of the development and initial marketing of Kodachrome.

I'm just saddened that Kodak quit making it. It is the only archival color film.

1 POV template: article sounds like an ad for Kodachrome
2 DPI?
3 Other Formats
4 Also

[edit] POV template: article sounds like an ad for Kodachrome

I marked this article with the POV template because it much of the article seems to consist of gushing praise for Kodachrome film. In particular, the second paragraph under "Characteristics" uses sentences such as, "McCurry's famous Afghan Girl portrait, taken in 1984 for the National Geographic, was, of course, a Kodachrome." The overall impression is that one is reading a print ad and not an encyclopedic article.

COMMENT: That line was written by me. The portrait is famous, that is a fact, fit for print in an encyclopedia. The words of course have been deleted, although they only referred to the fact that Steve McCurry uses Kodachrome a lot today and used it most of the time back in 1984 when the picture was taken.

I'm very familiar with the photograph, thank you. The original use "of course" is what really caught my eye. Please understand that when the original sentence is read by someone who isn't very familiar with McCurry's career, it seems to really promote Kodachrome like a really pushy ad. Eliminating the phrase "of course" answers my main concern.

I would like to change the article to make it sound more balanced, but because I don't personally use Kodachrome, I would appreciate input on how best to explain the characteristics of the film without undue praise or criticism of Kodachrome.

COMMENT: If you are not a Kodachrome user yourself, if you, apparently, have no experience in comparing Kodachrome with other films, and if you must ask for input from others to find out what, if anything, is wrong with the article, how balanced a judgement is it to label the article as unbalanced? Rather unfair. Please come up with hard facts and/or valid objections.

Simply because I don't shoot using Kodachrome doesn't mean that I have never seen the resultant photos; I have, many times. You should understand that I am not disputing the content of the article but rather the manner in which it is presented. I merely wanted to be courteous and have some input before changing the article.

Also, please remember the official Wikipedia policies of civility and no personal attacks, and please do not assume ignorance on the part of other users. I can appreciate that you care deeply about the subject.

OK, I can follow you and appreciate your words. Sorry for what may have looked like a personal attack. But after working on the original article (which contained many mistakes, dead links and omissions) for hours - see the history - it came as a bit of a personal attack to learn that the neutrality was being disputed. And looking at the alterations you are suggesting, your first reaction seems a bit over blown...

I can understand how you feel — looking through the history, you've spent quite some time on this article, so in a sense you must feel a little bit like it's your baby. I never intended for the POV tag as a personal attack, so I do apologise for any hurt feelings. You will be pleased to know that I have removed the POV tag from the article. While the phrasing of "the legendary Magnum photo agency" still strikes me as a bit strong, I'm reluctant to change it.

So you can better understand my initial reaction, the earlier sentence about the Afghan girl picture being a "Kodachrome, of course" sounded rather like bragging. Now that you have explained the context, I see why you put it in. I still think the new text is better precisely because it avoids the misunderstanding that came between us.

As a final suggestion, what do you think about substituting "large" instead of "big" when talking about print size? For some reason, the word "large" sounds better to me.

I'm glad that we could clear this up. Thanks for your willingness to listen. --Tachikom a 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some suggested changes:

Current: Therefore, and because of the beauty of Kodachrome colors,

Suggested: Therefore, and because of the intensity of Kodachrome colors (though that's not quite right either; the ability to capture intense colors is part of what Kodachrome can do but it's not all of it. Perhaps "tonal range" or something to that effect. The original word "beauty" is fine if a bit non-specific. Could you think of a more descriptive alternative?)

Tonal range is fine with me, I'll change it. Steve McCurry told me, in February 2006, that he just liked "the look" of Kodachrome, which was, I think, an understatement given his love for the film. He told that about 20 to 25 percent of his work was done on Kodachrome, and that he would use it a lot more if he had the films back from the lab a lot faster. As a measure of Alex Webbs love for Kodachrome, he wrote to me half jokingly that he thought he was "perhaps the largest user of Kodachrome these days". The word beauty may appear to be subjective, but what if many people think Kodachrome is beautiful? Just see the petitions to keep the Super 8 Kodachrome 40.

Current: At 24 megapixel, a Kodachrome scan from a Nikon Super Coolscan far outperforms the best digital camera's, which don't go further than 16 megapixels.

Suggested: At 24 megapixel resolution, a Kodachrome scan from a Nikon Super Coolscan far outperforms the best digital cameras, which are limited to 16 megapixels.

Fine.

Current: Because the prices for large size prints are dropping steeply since 2005,

Suggested: Because the prices for large size prints have been dropping steeply since 2005,

Fine of course

Current: The long-term "dark-keeping" stability under ordinary conditions is superior to any other color film

Suggested: I quite agree with the statement, based on what I've read. I merely think that this should be supported by some sort of reference — probably something from Wilhelm Imaging Research When I can, I'll try to put it in.

Most of that paragraph was not written by me. I just added the 200 years, based on a remark by Els Rijper in the introduction to her book Kodachrome 1939-1959 The American Invention of Our World (2002): she writes that Kodachromes least stable color, yellow, may, after 185 years, fade 20 percent at most, which I summed up as saying that the film is stable for 200 years. (I always assumed Rijpers remark was based on research by the Wilhelm Institute, as there are few other possible sources.)

Thanks for your input. --Tachikom a 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I applied the wrong template (there are several dealing with POV); this is only the second time I've done this. Thanks for your time. --Tachikom a 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: Maybe the opening sentence should replace the phrase 'color transparency (slide)' with 'reversal'? 'Transparency' is not a recognised term in moving image film technology, only still; 'reversal' (meaning a direct positive film from the camera; or, rarely, a colour reversal intermediate) is a widely understood term in both movie and still photography.

The entire "Digital Scanning and Resolution" section NEEDS citations to be less blatantly POV. They are assertions that many people disagree with, and without citations to a well-done resolution test, or even articles backing up these claims, it's baseless. You should also make clear, if this section is kept at all, that the only cameras (currently) limited to 16MP are 35mm ones; as it reads it is quite incorrect.

[edit] DPI?

The article currently claims that Kodachrome can succesfully be scanned at 12,000 dpi aka samples/inch resolution. Not that I'm critical of it, but I think it's necessary to have a source on that number for the emulsion's inherent resolution. --TlatoSMD, 20:17, 1 October (CEST)

Well, of course it can be scanned at that resolution, but the base emulsion doesn't have the resolution to actually provide additional information beyond about 4000 spi. The MTF curve for K40 at 10% contrast looks to give a 70 lp/mm resolution. If we just call that 140 pixels/mm x 25.4 mm/inch we come out a bit below 4000 pixels/inch to represent the image. Now sampling an analog image with somewhat random spatial frequecy distribution might lead us to want to sample at say 8000 spi, but that merely reduces the various aliasing problems inherent in sampling.

To make the claim that a 21M pixel image scanned from a 35mm film is better than a 16M pixel image from a DSLR just isn't borne out in reality. The image from a high-quality DSLR at 10M+ D200 is probably as good or better then the 21M scanned image from any color film I've scanned, including Kodachrome in the 10-200 ISO range, Ektar25 and several different Fujichromes from Velvia 50-100, Astia100F, Provia100, 100f, etc. The film image itself may have the edge in resolution, but the 4000 dpi scans don't. The scans are noisy, due to either sensor limitations or grain aliasing, or the fact that it is a sample of a sample. Now you can print very large photos from the scanned images, but you can also wet print very large images, and in each case the image can be spectacular at a normal viewing distance. But up close the prints will show grain and a lack of resolution.

Kodachrome25 and Ektar 25 are the two films that I've used with the best resolution and finest grain. Each of those emulsions has a grain structure that all but disapears, even in the focusing microscope on the print easel at 11X14 print magnifications. But it is there. And neither emulsion is available anymore.

That is why the best large prints come from medium and large format cameras, where the film medium (or digital sensor) really does have the resolution to hold fine detail at the meter+ print size, even when you move close. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.200.49.156 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Other Formats

No real complaints with how the article is progressing, though I might add: Other past film sizes-- 828 roll film in the 1940's-50's (?) 120 roll film mid 80's- early 90's, processing ended about 2 years ago. 4x5 (possibly larger)-- I've heard that it existed at one time.

Kodachrome was also (apparently) produced in the 110 "pocket camera" format; see 110 film for details, and yes, I did put in references for that fact. Fourohfour 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but Kodak even made a tiny Carosell projector to use slides in the tiny mounts that they used when processing it cmacd 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Color Print paper. The only color prints I have seen from 1950's which are as colorful as when printed. I have an example of my dad on 4x5 paper circa 1958 which was printed from a Kodachrome stereoview.

Kodak actually produced Kodachrome 335 which was a tad longer than 20 exposure film. 20 exposure film would provide 16 stereo pairs (23x24mm) from a Realist format stereo camera, and 36 exposure film would provide 29 pairs. Kodachrome 335 would provide 20 stereo pairs. The Realist stereo camera(1947)was actually invented to take advantage of Kodachrome, as well as the Viewmaster Personal stereo camera (~1949). Their advertizing emphasized the lifelike images.

Should some mention be made that the original Kodachrome was TypeA with an ASA of 10, and needed a filter for daylight which further reduced it to ASA 8. Then there is the 200 ASA stuff they make today (which I don't get too excited about, but others swear by it).

Also, as mentioned above, the digital scan info is a bit misleading and confusing. Any film including neg film can be scanned at any resolution, but the results are ambiguous. A lot depends on the printing method also. What about poster-size prints made with conventional enlargement and chemicals? A Kodachrome printed directly to Ilfochrome/Cibachrome, dye-transfer or ?, by a competent lab can be wonderful. Tho there is a limit on size, and I'm not sure if any labs are still doing that (The Slideprinter, Lasercolor)?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.149.129.88 (talk • contribs) .