Kodachrome vs Ultra Color 100

[chris00nj]

Although I'm relatively young and an amateur, I was looking to take my photography up a notch. I've never shot slide film, but the Kodachrome photos I see on the net are rich in color. (I'm off to Rome in a few months, so the project could be daftly titled Kodach-Rome).

However, the Ultra Color 100 negative film seems to be similar in quality (from viewing photos on the net) and it may be easier to not have to deal with slides. There is also Kodak Professional Elite Chrome Extra Color 100 slide film.


Does any one have experience working with the Ultra Color or Elite Chrome and how they compare in real life photos to Kodachrome?

Cheers, Chris

[Sebastian123]

Kodachrome and Ultra Color 100 color negative (as well as Elite Chrome Extra Color slide film) are very different. Ultra Color negative & Elite Chrome Extra Color slide are very similar in term of color and sharpness (very bright and bold color, grainless and very sharp).

Kodachorme's color is more subdued but with very good quality lens it is perhaps the sharpest film and most realistic color. However, Kodachrome film is grainier than UC100 and Elite Extra Color but the grain pattern in Kodachrome is so beautiful and very pleasant to the eyes.

[ISO64]

Ok in regards to color negative film I recomend you try Kodak
Portra 160NC. The contrast is not like Kodrachrome, but it
does have moderate color saturation. Use the 160VC if you
need more punch or the sky is gray. Don't under-expose, if you
want more color from NC or VS you can over expose a bit, experment
start with 1/3 to 1 stop over. The NC is also useful when you have a high contrast scene; it also has nice skin tones.

If you want slides with natural colors that will last use Kodachrome, send it off and wait for them to come back, it's worth it. If you don't care you want
more pumped up color and don't mind if it doesn't last as long pick up some nice E-6 films like the Elite Chrome. Once you get slides back if you need
prints, just take them to the fuji minilab at the drug store. You have no unneeded prints to deal with. Also remember YOU get the exposure and color YOU pick. When you use nagative film the machine or person at the lab make exposure and color "corrections". Best you get to know the person at the lab.

Good luck on your trip !

[StorminMatt]

The way I see it, this thread misses an important point. Regardless of what anyone here thinks of digital, it has gotten REALLY good. In fact, I think prints made from digital are BETTER than prints made from C41. And why bother scanning C41 when it is cheaper to just get a good DLSR and 'cut out the middleman'? For this reason, I find NO REASON IN THE WORLD to shoot C41. But when it comes to slides in general, and Kodachrome in particular, I just don't think digital is quite there when it comes to colors that look REALLY natural and pleasing (even if the sharpness actually IS there, and even if the color is still pretty good). And when it comes to PROJECTION (which is a MAJOR reason why I just LOVE slides), digital is most definitely NOT there. Even the best projectors can only produce 1080 lines of resolution. With the typical 3:2 aspect ratio, this means 1620x1080, or about 1.75MP of resolution - pathetic when compared to the effective resolution of a Kodachrome (or even an entry level DSLR). For this reason, slides in general, and Kodachrome in particular, are the ONLY reason why I still shoot any film.

[Fredrik]

Well said, StorminMatt. I agree when it comes to small format photography. I don't shoot any 35mm color negative film; I use digital when I want prints. But for medium format work I like C41 because it's easier to scan and has a lot more exposure latitude than slide film. (And I don't have a medium format slide projector anyway.)

[ISO64]

Good point about the digital, the quality is verry good. I comment from my own point of view. If the intended output is the net, digital is a logical way to go.

I don't own DSLR yet because of cost. One can get a nice deals on
used film cameras.

I could own one (I could get by with the Canon 5D) but I keep spending my gear $$ on more prime lenses. If I had the money for the 5D today, I would
buy the 24MM f/1.4L and spend the leftovers on film. Even now the camera
is just a light proof box, the glass is what matters.

I also think older manual gear is a good way for students to learn some of the
basics of photography, no features to get in the way and low cost.

Something I forgot:

Don't go and use slide film for the fist time on a once and a life time trip.
If you want to do it, get a few rolls to try at home first. You don't want to
find out the hard way that your camera over exposes everything by a stop.
Also it would help you to learn the film, to know how it resonds to different light and color.

[matt8314]

Originally Posted by ISO64

Something I forgot:

Don't go and use slide film for the fist time on a once and a life time trip.
If you want to do it, get a few rolls to try at home first. You don't want to
find out the hard way that your camera over exposes everything by a stop.
Also it would help you to learn the film, to know how it resonds to different light and color.

Actually, I disagree with this. When I was nine years old, my grandpa gave me an old Petri manual camera, and taught me the basics. With all of this, I was able to go out and take shots like this right off the bat on Kodachrome:







I just don't think it's as hard as it's made out to be. The only time I have REALLY had problems with slide film is taking shots where part of the image is bright, and the other part is dark. However, it might not be a bad idea to try shooting a roll of slide film beforehand to get somewhat of a hang of it. But if you are REALLY worried about how your pictures turn out on a once-in-a-lifetime trip, shoot both film AND digital.

[matt8314]

Originally Posted by ISO64

I also think older manual gear is a good way for students to learn some of the
basics of photography, no features to get in the way and low cost.

Actually, I think digital is better for learning. You just can't beat the instant feedback that it gives you when it comes to learning what works and what doesn't. Digital also records camera settings in the metadata, so there is no need to have to try to remember this OR bother with carrying around pen and paper to write this down. And finally, you only become good when you do LOTS of shooting. And digital makes this EXTREMELY cheap.

[chris00nj]

Originally Posted by matt8314

Actually, I think digital is better for learning. You just can't beat the instant feedback that it gives you when it comes to learning what works and what doesn't. Digital also records camera settings in the metadata, so there is no need to have to try to remember this OR bother with carrying around pen and paper to write this down. And finally, you only become good when you do LOTS of shooting. And digital makes this EXTREMELY cheap.

The only way to do that is to buy a digital SLR and put every setting on manual. It may too tempting to default to the program and DSLRs are not cheap.

You could pick up a used Pentax K1000 for $50 and shoot many rolls before you get to the cost of a DSLR. You also can pay as you go. There is no huge cash outlay required.

[matt8314]

Originally Posted by chris00nj

The only way to do that is to buy a digital SLR and put every setting on manual. It may too tempting to default to the program and DSLRs are not cheap.

You could pick up a used Pentax K1000 for $50 and shoot many rolls before you get to the cost of a DSLR. You also can pay as you go. There is no huge cash outlay required.

Actually, used DSLRs are pretty damn cheap these days. You can pick up a used Canon 20D body for around $400. And 300D and 350D Digital Rebels are cheaper yet. Of course, lenses will cost something. But Canon EF lenses have the advantage of being usable on both EOS digital and film bodies (EOS film bodies are VERY cheap). And if you consider that the cost of E6 slide film and processing is around $16 for a roll, we are only talking about 20-25 rolls of film to pay for a used DSLR body. Of course, if you use Kodachrome, the cost is even higher. C41 might be cheaper. But do you REALLY want THAT?