Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've been trying a bit of Kodachrome recently, after hearing so much about the discontinuation of K25, and I find that it shows very smooth gradations of tonality, and no grain that I can readily see. The K64 also seemed a little sharper, although this is very iffy since I was shooting handheld. However, it is far less saturation than Provia, and seems to have bit less contrast. The colors do seem pretty faithful (Provia sometimes is just a bit warm with skin tones). It doesn't seem to be any more difficult to scan than Provia. I suppose that with the right processing and scanning, Kodachrome can provide renditions of a scene that are extremely close to real life. However, I don't know how much of an advantage that really is, particularly since just about all slides are scanned and adjusted nowadays, anyway. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 18:58 Subject: RE: [Leica] 35 & MF, scans, and Bali > Bill, > > Kodachrome 64 looks to me like 800 speed film when compared with Provia 100. > But Kodachrome has other merits. OTOH, I just finished the last of my > Kodacrhome. From here on out, I think it's Provia 100 and 400 -- and Velvia > when I'm in a tie-dye and lava lamp mood. > > Dave > > >>Scanning 35: I have been using Kodak Photo CD scans for most of my 35mm > work. When I compared the quality of those scans from Kodachrome 64 with > those from Provia 100 I found the difference to be significant. I had a > bunch of K64 all packed to go to Bali but I swapped it for Provia at the > last moment. Has anyone else noticed the difference in scans from these two > films?<< > > >