Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll jump in here with a little blatant oversimplification, generalization, and unscientific bias, with gusto however. Forgive me Erwin. I agree with you Tim. My old Kodachrome 25 (and even 64) slides are still my favorites. Rich, natural, and deep color. New Kodachrome still looks natural to my eye, but not as deep or rich, especially the 25. Now here comes the real opinionated, blatant oversimplification. I also think many slide films today are essentially unnatural, verging on ugly and garish. While it isn't always the case I'll admit, Elite 100, E100S and SW, and Velvia can all distort color in a way I find unnatural and unappealing. Astia is better. And another thing ;-) Hearkening back to Erwin's comments from a few months ago about the benefits of using Kodachrome with Leica glass. I agree here also. Not that one shouldn't use whatever one wants or likes. But as some of you know, I had a couple of R6's which I always loved, but I got tempted to buy a Nikon F5 to experience all the bells and whistles -- plus I used to use Nikkormats and F2's. The Nikon lenses seemed quite sharp and all. I used up a lot of slide film and all seemed well, but I didn't care much for the color cast of a lot of it. Most of this was due to the films themselves since they looked a little garish with my Leica lenses too. But when I put Kodachrome in the Nikon, the slides had a harsh, overly contrasty look to them. With the Leicas (M or R) the Kodachrome came out with a long, natural tonality. For example, Leica shots of my yellow lab on an overcast day showed him with his natural yellow fur and brown eyes. The same Kodachrome slides with the Nikon turned his coat lighter and his eyes darker. No matter what the conditions were, the Kodachrome film had the ability to reveal qualities in the Nikon glass that looked less real to me, whereas the Leica lenses exhibited a natural look, with nice even tonal gradation -- more like things appear in the "real" world. This is the only reason I sold the F5 and bought an R8. Still can't afford those Leica lenses though ;-) Homer Simpson with 'tude (aka John McLeod) - ---------- >From: "Tim Atherton" <timphoto@nt.sympatico.ca> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Subject: RE: [Leica] No more PMK 25 - Now Kodachrome II >Date: Fri, Dec 11, 1998, 4:48 PM > >I know this is getting slightly off topic (though there must have been an >awful lot of Kodachrome II shot with Leicas), but I recently had to work >with some old Kodachrome II transparencies in the NWT Archives. > >These slides were from the 1960's as I recall, and they blew me away. > >First, the colour did not appear to have faded in 30 years (they had only >been in archival conditions for a couple of years - in contrast, there was a >lot of colour shift in E6 films that were not as old). > >Then, the grain was incredible. > >Finally, the colours themselves were very impressive, much better than >current KM25/64. They were closer to many of the modern Fuji/Kodak E6 >(though not quite the super saturated kind). Only I would have said, >slightly better. Strong colours, but with a natural feel. And an almost >Leica feel of 3D (not, they weren't taken with Leicas). > >I realise now why so many of those Ernst Haas colour images have that feel >(in addition to his creativity IMHO). Makes you wonder if the current crop >of E6 is finally catching up to where we were 30 years ago - other than in >speed? > >Tim A > >