Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've been using Kodachrome since the 50's. I've never liked Kodachrome 64 at all. It's OK if the final media is prints but not for projection. On the other hand, I find that Kodachrome 200 has a color rendition similar to Kodachrome 25 and so I keep K25 in two bodies and K200 in the third. I find that most of the stuff I see on the Internet is gaudy and unnatural. I couldn't imagine Leicas w/o Kodachrome 25. Bud Cook - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Cooper" <visigoth@echonyc.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Cc: <leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:00 PM Subject: [Leica] Re: Kodachrome > > Kodachrome seems to be have a serious following here, but I've yet to be > convinced. I shot gardens with K64 in Kyoto, and the colors were *dire* > relative to the same scenes shot with Velvia: muddy, with a distinct > green-brown bias. Reds were dull. It does seem about as sharp as Provia > F -- perhaps not quite -- but I vastly prefer the color balance in the new > Provia, if I'm seeking neutrality. For saturation, I'll shoot Velvia or > E100VS. > > I intend to take some K64 out in Manhattan, to see whether it's just the > bucolic stuff that it mangles, but I really don't like it much. (Is K25 > much different?) > > > Douglas Cooper > >