Same in Australia. I actually liked it as a system; the results were consistent and it was quite convenient in a sense.
AHHHHH! Those children! They’re being eaten by a monster! On Christmas morning!
It’s too bad that effect can’t be controlled. Kinda neat.
That’s really it, I think. Kodachrome was about the first widely available high quality color film- it was used by both amateur and pro still photographers, as well as in motion pictures.
For a LONG time, it was the gold standard for color films due to the high quality of the images it captured.
It was slow. It was expensive. It wasn’t particularly flexible in use or processing.
But AFAIK it was pretty much the best there was. If you got a good picture on Kodachrome you really had something.
The unique thing about kodachrome is that the color couplers were in the the developer, not in the film.
Actually, we are currently living in the best possible time to shoot 35 mm film. Maybe we’re starting to reach the trailing edge as places that develop it are becoming fewer, but you can still ones with same day service in many cities.
I have a Nikon F65, one of the last cheap consumer SLRs. Sure, the viewfinder isn’t great and it lacks the insane number of digital tricks, but it still supports all the major features AND nearly all current autofocus lenses, including VR (vibration reduction). It was cheap new ~ 15 years ago at $300 or so, but today it’s a steal at something like $25 used.
Remember, with film the only things that matter are the film and the lens, the camera doesn’t influence image quality.
Yeah, kinda but not really. What you say is true assuming you get the exposure correct. And given that incorrect exposure is one of the single biggest faults in photographs, and that the camera has an influence over how often that happens, it’s not really true.
Film is amazing because of the way it interprets colors. Kodachrome had one of the best artful interpretations of color.
A few years ago I bought one of these color palette gadgets to use along with my camera and monitor calibration gadget in order to have a completely balanced color workflow.
Before each photo shoot I diligently photographed the Passport palette in the same light I was going to be using and I went through the process of making a custom camera profile for the shoot, and I found out something totally surprising to me: few colors come out of a digital camera true, and few colors appear on film true. I came to the conclusion that pure correct color is often quite bland and might not be as pleasing to the eye as the colors we see on film or in well processed digital.
I don’t use the color checker anymore, though I still calibrate my monitor.
Film (and now digital) manufacturers have spent great amounts of R&D in order to fine-tune their approach to manipulating the color spectrum with the tools at their disposal, fitting within the gamut and sensitivity of their dyes.
It’s kind of the visual equivalent of applying all kinds of processing to dry audio in order to make it even better.
Because of this, each film has a distinct feel that makes it optimal for certain types of subject matter. Though I have never used Kodachrome, the modern Velvia slide film is a similar film, really best at doing landscapes, with bright punchy colors, but not the best film for skin tones.
If you are going for portraiture, you would probably a film like Kodak Portra 160 or Fuji 160C. If you still want slide film, Fuji Astia might a good choice.
These days I like to use custom camera profiles from VSCO that imitate the old films, and they do a pretty good job at it by diligent color conversion, contrast, and grain. Apply a Kodak Gold 200 preset to a bunch of photos and suddenly they look like family snapshots from 1988.
If you don’t have Lightroom or Photoshop, DXO makes a standalone product that does much the same thing as the vsco profiles- it’s called “Filmpack”.