Last year a friend celebrated his 50th birthday. He had me take lots of photos with a digital camera. Was quite fun as there were a couple of celebs there
Anyway, his laptop crashed termianlly a few months later and he lost all the pics, having not had prints made. He also lost 300 pictures from a trip to Venice with his fiancee.
Fortunately I had backed up his birthday pics on a flash drive, and kept them for a while just in case...The venice pics he had the forsight to print soon after the trip.
anybody that is a lover of this format and suggests to kodak they should discontinue k40 should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
Pros hate Kodachrome because it requires good technique all the time and there is great potential to screw up big time (very embarrassing for the pros). Thats why they love vision neg stocks which has massive under and over exposure latitude.
Some of the best stuff I have ever shot was on this very old film technology.
It has a magical unique quality unlike anything else.
When Im sitting in an expensive telecine suite it is the k40 that the colorist gets excited about, not the safe, boring vision neg stocks, that any bozo can get an exposure off.
If Kodachrome goes, super8 goes shortly afterwards.
I find the notion that just because somebody does not like or use a product they think it should be discontinued, to be a slightly Fascistic attitude.
Nevermind petitions, let's just take Nigel round the back and sort him out! :twisted: It's strange how many people on here forget that super 8 is for the amateur too, I'll not have any elitism in my back yard matey.
I've just put together a feature film compiled from home movie films taken over the last 75 years. I've put in film from working class to Viscount. Film is for everyone.
Oh and Widescreen do light posatives from Vision stock for projection but these are not finished prints. (minimum 100ft -or 2x 50ft @ £30 and £15 per 50ft therafter). 8O
Actually pros LOVE Kodachrome, Big K has tried to axe it in the past but the legions of pros using it in 35mm for stills has kept this unique stock going.
The outcry from the pros has saved Kodachrome on two occasions that I know of, late 80's and early 90's.
I repeat. I reapet. I REPEAT.
Kodachrome is not going anywhere. Anybody who suggests so is either maliciously spreading a rumour they know to be false or is just plain stupid.
Kodak spent millions a couple of years ago upgrading their Kodachrome processing eqipment...are they going to make it obsolete now???? Use your brains. K'chrome ain't going anywhere.
kodachrome is cheap. that's a major pro and it's what keeps me shooting super 8, but it has a very special look which in my opinion makes it suited only for certain applications. 99% of cinemtographers don't shoot landscapes in sunset, 70's nostalgia or skateboarding every day.
what i meant by pros was cinematographers,cameramen etc.
in the film industry..
i have spent mainy years,trying to make these guys less nervous,about reversal stocks..
clearly if your a national geographic stills man shooting kodachrome 35mm.
you have 2-5 weeks,and 150 rolls plus to get the shots..
plus great ability...
even great cameramen can bottle it..
i was meant to work on a film with robbie muller,check his credit list..
pretty impressive film list..
anyway we shot loads of tests 35...16..s8..with the director sally potter she loved the kodachrome super 8..
2 weeks before i was meant to fly to argentina,i got a call saying robbie wanted to shoot 35 do bleach bypass on neg print..because super 8 was to dangerous,and unstable..
he had convinced the director,that super 8 use on flash back scenes..in the film would result in expensive re-shoots..
which was bullshit..
the production did not say the look was wrong,they just said it was dangerous...
I can’t believe what I’m reading here, that some people actually want K-40 discontinued? I have yet to see another super 8 film stock available from Kodak (reversal or negative) that can beat K-40’s sharpness and color. From what I have seen and experimented with, K-40 is the best super 8 film out there. I personally hate Ektachrome film and I will never use it. But I don’t go around saying it should be discontinue just because I don’t like it. I wish others would do the same for K-40. If people don’t like K-40 just don’t use it, don’t try to take it away from the majority that do love this film! :?
Kodak will not discontinue their #1 selling super 8 film. Because if K-40 is to be discontinued, then they would discontinue all super 8 film. This rumor has been going on for 2 decades now. If anything super 8 is getting more popular now, and all this rumor does is get the whole super 8 community riled up like a bunch of chicken hens chased of their nest. Kodachrome 40 is not going to be discontinued!!
Dre wrote:I have yet to see another super 8 film stock available from Kodak (reversal or negative) that can beat K-40’s sharpness and color.
k40 is the least sharp stock there is, so that doesn't make sense. of course it looks really sharp because it's low grain and very contrasty, but let's not confuse things here. as for color, how can you "beat" the color scheme of a stock? surely it depends on the look you want, doesn't it? if you want saturated colors the ekta 100d has more saturation and if you want natural colors the vision 2 stocks wins hands down. if what you're saying is "funky colors that look great for landscapes and 70's nostalgia" then i agree completely.
Kodachrome film in general (I am not just referring to K40 or even motion picture film) will survive because professionals use it.
read my previous post, I am not referring to pros shooting K40 super 8 or 16mm I specifically mention Kodachrome 35mm stills. The last time Kodak actually tried to kill of Kodachrome circa 1991 the pros shooting 35mm stills were absolutely up in arms.
Kodachrome in general, and therefore K40, isn't going anywhere just yet.
Dre wrote:I have yet to see another super 8 film stock available from Kodak (reversal or negative) that can beat K-40’s sharpness and color.
k40 is the least sharp stock there is, so that doesn't make sense. of course it looks really sharp because it's low grain and very contrasty, but let's not confuse things here.
Yes, I know that. That’s what I was trying to say. I guess I could have worded my sentence better so it makes more sense.
mattias wrote:as for color, how can you "beat" the color scheme of a stock? surely it depends on the look you want, doesn't it? if you want saturated colors the ekta 100d has more saturation and if you want natural colors the vision 2 stocks wins hands down. if what you're saying is "funky colors that look great for landscapes and 70's nostalgia" then i agree completely.
I agree with what you are saying. Each film stock has a unique quality. But it’s hardly a reason for people to suggest discontinuing a perfectly good film stock just because it’s old. I have seen a lot of really bad K-40 footage. But I wouldn’t blame that on the film. It’s because people do not use it properly. If K-40 is used properly with proper tungsten lighting, good cameras, filters, etc, the color looks incredible. It all depends on how you use it. You can make it look different then 70's nostalgia if you really want to.
As far as nature photography goes, there is very little that can touch Kodachrome, except maybe Velvia. And even Velvia doesn't have quite the same warmth and vibrance.
On the sharpness issue, I fail to see the difference between 'verry little grain' and 'sharp'. It seems, to me, that if a film looks sharp to the eye, then it is sharp. Now, a super 8 frame cannot be as sharp as a 16mm frame, but that's because of the size of the film frame, not the film itself.
For example, shoot some 35mm Kodachrome slides, and also shoot some 35mm high quality negative print film. The Kodachrome will look brighter, more vibrant, and more 'true to life', and will likely look sharper. Most serious professional photographers shoot slides - AKA reversal film, for these very reasons.
I think an E6 process super 8 film would be killer. All you would need to develop at home would be a tank and a Tetenal E6 Slide Kit. Anyone who has shot any of the fuji E6 process films (Astia, Provia, Etc) can tell you - they are superb.
Let's get those much maligned folks over at Pro8mm to stuff some fuji E6 film into super 8 cartridges!
Dre wrote:I agree with what you are saying. Each film stock has a unique quality. But it’s hardly a reason for people to suggest discontinuing a perfectly good film stock just because it’s old.
point taken. i don't want them to discontinue it though, unless they have to in order to introduce a new reversal that's as cheap and can be processed more easily. the ektachrome 64t maybe.
