1. Kodachrome Mac Os Catalina
2. Kodachrome Mac Os X

Kodachrome II replaced Kodachrome 10/16 - and, it had finer grain than the older, slower emulsion. Likewise with Kodachrome 25 which was discontinued a few years ago, but lives on in. Life doesn’t happen in black and white, and in 1935 Eastman Kodak made sure that we stopped commemorating it as such through drab, colorless film. And just like that, Kodachrome – the brand name for color reversal film – was born. Hailed as one of the first successful color materials, Kodachrome. Kodachrome & Microtek Kodachrome slides are particularly difficult to digitize, the scans often show a blue cast. Using a Microtek scanner with SilverFast, you obtain perfect scans. Windows 10 (64) / Mac OS 11.0 (Big Sur) compatible: Microtek ScanMaker 1000 XL Plus SilverFast 8 supported Windows 10 (64) / Mac OS 11.0 (Big Sur) compatible. Kodachrome gains richer hues due to Ed Harris' colorful performance, which is enough to enliven a solid if predictable father-son road trip drama. SilverFast SRDx feature is perfect for correcting the scratches on the film, especially silver based black-and-white film and Kodachrome film. SilverFast AACO lightens shadow areas, without changing mid-tones and highlights. SilverFast software is available for both Mac and Windows platforms, and also includes a native Adobe Photoshop plug-in.

POV template: article sounds like an ad for Kodachrome[edit]

I marked this article with the POV template because it much of the article seems to consist of gushing praise for Kodachrome film. In particular, the second paragraph under 'Characteristics' uses sentences such as, 'McCurry's famous Afghan Girl portrait, taken in 1984 for the National Geographic, was, of course, a Kodachrome.' The overall impression is that one is reading a print ad and not an encyclopedic article.

COMMENT: That line was written by me. The portrait is famous, that is a fact, fit for print in an encyclopedia. The words of course have been deleted, although they only referred to the fact that Steve McCurry uses Kodachrome a lot today and used it most of the time back in 1984 when the picture was taken.

I'm very familiar with the photograph, thank you. The original use 'of course' is what really caught my eye. Please understand that when the original sentence is read by someone who isn't very familiar with McCurry's career, it seems to really promote Kodachrome like a really pushy ad. Eliminating the phrase 'of course' answers my main concern.

I would like to change the article to make it sound more balanced, but because I don't personally use Kodachrome, I would appreciate input on how best to explain the characteristics of the film without undue praise or criticism of Kodachrome.

COMMENT: If you are not a Kodachrome user yourself, if you, apparently, have no experience in comparing Kodachrome with other films, and if you must ask for input from others to find out what, if anything, is wrong with the article, how balanced a judgement is it to label the article as unbalanced? Rather unfair. Please come up with hard facts and/or valid objections.

Simply because I don't shoot using Kodachrome doesn't mean that I have never seen the resultant photos; I have, many times. You should understand that I am not disputing the content of the article but rather the manner in which it is presented. I merely wanted to be courteous and have some input before changing the article.

Also, please remember the official Wikipedia policies of civility and no personal attacks, and please do not assume ignorance on the part of other users. I can appreciate that you care deeply about the subject.

OK, I can follow you and appreciate your words. Sorry for what may have looked like a personal attack. But after working on the original article (which contained many mistakes, dead links and omissions) for hours - see the history - it came as a bit of a personal attack to learn that the neutrality was being disputed. And looking at the alterations you are suggesting, your first reaction seems a bit over blown...

I can understand how you feel — looking through the history, you've spent quite some time on this article, so in a sense you must feel a little bit like it's your baby. I never intended for the POV tag as a personal attack, so I do apologise for any hurt feelings. You will be pleased to know that I have removed the POV tag from the article. While the phrasing of 'the legendary Magnum photo agency' still strikes me as a bit strong, I'm reluctant to change it.

So you can better understand my initial reaction, the earlier sentence about the Afghan girl picture being a 'Kodachrome, of course' sounded rather like bragging. Now that you have explained the context, I see why you put it in. I still think the new text is better precisely because it avoids the misunderstanding that came between us.

As a final suggestion, what do you think about substituting 'large' instead of 'big' when talking about print size? For some reason, the word 'large' sounds better to me.

I'm glad that we could clear this up. Thanks for your willingness to listen. --Tachikoma 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some suggested changes:

Current: Therefore, and because of the beauty of Kodachrome colors,

Suggested: Therefore, and because of the intensity of Kodachrome colors (though that's not quite right either; the ability to capture intense colors is part of what Kodachrome can do but it's not all of it. Perhaps 'tonal range' or something to that effect. The original word 'beauty' is fine if a bit non-specific. Could you think of a more descriptive alternative?)

Tonal range is fine with me, I'll change it.Steve McCurry told me, in February 2006, that he just liked 'the look' of Kodachrome, which was, I think, an understatement given his love for the film. He told that about 20 to 25 percent of his work was done on Kodachrome, and that he would use it a lot more if he had the films back from the lab a lot faster. As a measure of Alex Webbs love for Kodachrome, he wrote to me half jokingly that he thought he was 'perhaps the largest user of Kodachrome these days'.The word beauty may appear to be subjective, but what if many people think Kodachrome is beautiful? Just see the petitions to keep the Super 8 Kodachrome 40.

Current: At 24 megapixel, a Kodachrome scan from a Nikon Super Coolscan far outperforms the best digital camera's, which don't go further than 16 megapixels.

Suggested: At 24 megapixel resolution, a Kodachrome scan from a Nikon Super Coolscan far outperforms the best digital cameras, which are limited to 16 megapixels.

Kodachrome Mac Os Catalina

Fine.

Current: Because the prices for large size prints are dropping steeply since 2005,

Suggested: Because the prices for large size prints have been dropping steeply since 2005,

Fine of course

Current: The long-term 'dark-keeping' stability under ordinary conditions is superior to any other color film

Suggested:I quite agree with the statement, based on what I've read. I merely think that this should be supported by some sort of reference — probably something from Wilhelm Imaging Research When I can, I'll try to put it in.

Most of that paragraph was not written by me. I just added the 200 years, based on a remark by Els Rijper in the introduction to her book Kodachrome 1939-1959 The American Invention of Our World (2002): she writes that Kodachromes least stable color, yellow, may, after 185 years, fade 20 percent at most, which I summed up as saying that the film is stable for 200 years. (I always assumed Rijpers remark was based on research by the Wilhelm Institute, as there are few other possible sources.)

Thanks for your input. --Tachikoma 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I applied the wrong template (there are several dealing with POV); this is only the second time I've done this. Thanks for your time. --Tachikoma 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: Maybe the opening sentence should replace the phrase 'color transparency (slide)' with 'reversal'? 'Transparency' is not a recognised term in moving image film technology, only still; 'reversal' (meaning a direct positive film from the camera; or, rarely, a colour reversal intermediate) is a widely understood term in both movie and still photography.

What is the source of the statement, '(Some E-6 films now rival Kodachrome for image stability.)' in the (now) section on Color Stability? I couldn't find that judgment in the Wilhelm article linked to this page. I assume, because of the statement's location, the comment means dark storage stability, but it doesn't say.Anoneditor 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DPI?[edit]

The article currently claims that Kodachrome can succesfully be scanned at 12,000 dpi aka samples/inch resolution. Not that I'm critical of it, but I think it's necessary to have a source on that number for the emulsion's inherent resolution. --TlatoSMD, 20:17, 1 October (CEST)

Well, of course it can be scanned at that resolution, but the base emulsion doesn't have the resolution to actually provide additional information beyond about 4000 spi. The MTF curve for K40 at 10% contrast looks to give a 70 lp/mm resolution. If we just call that 140 pixels/mm x 25.4 mm/inch we come out a bit below 4000 pixels/inch to represent the image. Now sampling an analog image with somewhat random spatial frequecy distribution might lead us to want to sample at say 8000 spi, but that merely reduces the various aliasing problems inherent in sampling.

Kodachrome Mac Os X

To make the claim that a 21M pixel image scanned from a 35mm film is better than a 16M pixel image from a DSLR just isn't borne out in reality. The image from a high-quality DSLR at 10M+ D200 is probably as good or better then the 21M scanned image from any color film I've scanned, including Kodachrome in the 10-200 ISO range, Ektar25 and several different Fujichromes from Velvia 50-100, Astia100F, Provia100, 100f, etc. The film image itself may have the edge in resolution, but the 4000 dpi scans don't. The scans are noisy, due to either sensor limitations or grain aliasing, or the fact that it is a sample of a sample. Now you can print very large photos from the scanned images, but you can also wet print very large images, and in each case the image can be spectacular at a normal viewing distance. But up close the prints will show grain and a lack of resolution.

Kodachrome25 and Ektar 25 are the two films that I've used with the best resolution and finest grain. Each of those emulsions has a grain structure that all but disapears, even in the focusing microscope on the print easel at 11X14 print magnifications. But it is there. And neither emulsion is available anymore.

That is why the best large prints come from medium and large format cameras, where the film medium (or digital sensor) really does have the resolution to hold fine detail at the meter+ print size, even when you move close. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.200.49.156 (talk • contribs) .

Other Formats[edit]

No real complaints with how the article is progressing, though I might add:Other past film sizes-- 828 roll film in the 1940's-50's (?)120 roll film mid 80's- early 90's, processing ended about 2 years ago.4x5 (possibly larger)-- I've heard that it existed at one time.

Kodachrome was also (apparently) produced in the 110 'pocket camera' format; see 110 film for details, and yes, I did put in references for that fact. Fourohfour 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but Kodak even made a tiny Carosell projector to use slides in the tiny mounts that they used when processing it cmacd 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Color Print paper. The only color prints I have seen from 1950's which are as colorful as when printed. I have an example of my dad on 4x5 paper circa 1958 which was printed from a Kodachrome stereoview.

Kodak actually produced Kodachrome 335 which was a tad longer than 20 exposure film. 20 exposure film would provide 16 stereo pairs (23x24mm) from a Realist format stereo camera, and 36 exposure film would provide 29 pairs. Kodachrome 335 would provide 20 stereo pairs. The Realist stereo camera(1947)was actually invented to take advantage of Kodachrome, as well as the Viewmaster Personal stereo camera (~1949). Their advertizing emphasized the lifelike images.

Should some mention be made that the original Kodachrome was TypeA with an ASA of 10, and needed a filter for daylight which further reduced it to ASA 8. Then there is the 200 ASA stuff they make today (which I don't get too excited about, but others swear by it).

Also, as mentioned above, the digital scan info is a bit misleading and confusing. Any film including neg film can be scanned at any resolution, but the results are ambiguous. A lot depends on the printing method also.What about poster-size prints made with conventional enlargement and chemicals? A Kodachrome printed directly to Ilfochrome/Cibachrome, dye-transfer or ?, by a competent lab can be wonderful. Tho there is a limit on size, and I'm not sure if any labs are still doing that (The Slideprinter, Lasercolor)?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.149.129.88 (talk • contribs) .

The largest prints I've seen from 35mm Kodachrome are about 30x40 inches, made with an enlarged interneg, for Lisa Fiel for her fall 2005 exhibition in the Conde Nast Building lobby at 4 Times Square.

Kodak definately made 4x5 Kodachrome up until 1953 or 1954. Here is an example from 1942. Jo7hs2 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also[edit]

Should there be a link to Kodachrome Basin State Park, as there is a mention there about the origin of it's name?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.149.129.88 (talk • contribs) .

It should also be noted that ISO 64 and ISO 200 versions exist in 35mm cartridges (though not in motion picture versions).

Paul Simon[edit]

I can't believe that nobody's mentioned a little blurb about Paul Simon's 1988 song Kodachrome. Who feels like working it in? ;) thadius856_{talk airports neutrality} 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism?[edit]

The text at the following website is very similar to, if not exactly the same as, much of the text in this Wikipedia article. Anyone know which was created first? http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ko/kodachrome.htmAnoneditor 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just looks like yet another Wikipedia mirror. The bottom of each page even says:

This is the 'GNU Free Documentation License' reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer

Nothing to worry about. --Imroy 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Horiuchi shut down their K-Lab[edit]

Horiuchi shut down their K-Lab; and removed the page from their English version of their website. My source is Kodak itself, as they stopped making the B-I-B (bag-in-box) chemistry required for the K-Lab. Dwayne's, with the sole K-14 line, buys K-14 soup in bulk and has an analytic lab to keep their process in control. Discpad 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Dan

Horiuchi is STILL developing K-14, but only until December 20th, 2007. I have had Kodachrome developed as recently as 2 weeks ago. 211.133.25.146 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but here in Europe one can still buy Kodachrome at any good photo store, with pre-paid processing, and then mail it to either Stuttgart or Lusanne (Switzerland). So I don't believe that this place in Kansas is the only place in the world, since Kodak still seems to have two labs in Europe. (Honestly this sounds like an advertisement for this processing lab, at least to me.) In fact, I even asked the guy who manages film at my local photo store in in Munich after reading this Wiki page, and he said 'Well of course Kodak still processes K-14 in Stuttgart, how else could we sell it?' Although, the film does actually say (printed on the canister): 'Prepaid processing available only outside the US.' Sorry I don't have any good hard evidence of any of this, but, then again, there are no references to the contrary either, so perhaps the whole thing should be better researched...--85.181.40.203 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the EU, mailers are sent to Lausanne (or Stuttgart, I guess), which Kodak then forwards to Dwayne's in KS. 69.136.75.193 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'coating' is the correct word[edit]

Yes, 'coating' is the correct word for the process of depositing the emulsion onto the film base. Discpad 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ISO, not ASA[edit]

Film ratings have been using the ISO rating system for about 30 years now: These are almost identical -- but not exactly -- the same as the older ASA film speed rating system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Current status[edit]

Article needs to make current status (i.e. what films- if any- remain in production, and what processing facilities remain) much clearer at the start, even if these subjects are covered in more depth later on. Fourohfour 14:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'Longevity' seems misplaced[edit]

The opening of the article seems to go off on a tangent about the Kennedy assassination. This doesn't add any real info about the film stock, and seems extraneous, if not POV. I'd recommend removing this info, or at least moving it to a trivia section rather than the opening of the article.

That was added a month ago by Discpad in this edit. He tweaked it a little and then it was soon cut back by an anon editor and myself. Perhaps a new 'Longevity' section should be created. --Imroy 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Kodak mailing address and 1-800 numbers[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not an ad for Kodak. The PO Box to mail film to, the 1-800 numbers to call for help, etc. belong on Kodak's web site, not in an encyclopedia. Afabbro 06:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Fourohfour 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation as to where Kodachrome films must be sent, since there is only one remaining lab in the world. As a frequent contributor to the Film and Processing Forum on Photo.Net, I see this all the time. Unfortunately, with this Wikipedia website constantly pushed to the top in Google, confused photographers often land here. Discpad 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to provide a brief link to the relevant information. Fourohfour 12:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there is already a link to Dwayne's in the linking, and the processing section mentions Dwayne's, I added that mailers should be sent to Dwayne's in that section, without adding the address and 800 number. There isn't exactly a lot of information surrounding this topic floating around, and what there is resides on message boards. I personally feel the mailing address should return until processing stops, but this is a decent compromise. The mailing address, btw, is Kodak Mailer Processing PO Box 1171 Parsons, KS 67357 Jo7hs2 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A correction needed[edit]

'exceeded only by Kodachrome 8/10 for microphotography' (in reference to Kodachrome 25)

This is not correct.

First, Kodachrome 25 did not succeed Kodachrome 10/16 (the 8/10 is even older than that). Kodachrome II replaced Kodachrome 10/16 -- and, it had finer grain than the older, slower emulsion. Likewise with Kodachrome 25 which was discontinued a few years ago, but lives on in the freezers of folks like me.

Second, Kodachrome (8/10 or otherwise) was NOT a microphotography film (although I'm sure some was used for that purpose). There was indeed a microphotography film (and it did in fact have finer grain/higher resolution than Kodachrome), but it was an EKTACHROME type film. It was the last E4 process emulsion, a bit of an anachronism, lasting well into the E6 era.

BTW, there was one more color film with higher resolution/finer grain than Kodachrome: Ektar/Royal Gold 25 -- a truly amazing film, which likewise lives on in the freezers of many people (although in my experience this film has amazing longevity -- I found a roll that had spent a DECADE in my non-airconditioned upstairs, quite hot in the summer. I shot it, not expecting much, but when it came back from the lab the prints looked perfect -- they looked like they were shot with a fresh, in-date roll of film).

'Progress' in many ways is running in reverse, having taken a back-seat to economic realpolitik. This is tragic, but I suppose inevitable.

If someone could integrate these facts into the article, the readers would be well-served. I am not going to bother doing so myself, since my own edits seem to evaporate.

209.124.55.236 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We'd need citations from reliable sources first. Girolamo Savonarola 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoid stating opinion as fact[edit]

I have again removed claims that Kodachrome is essentially the best film in the world. Some have not stated it in as many words, but today, Kodachrome trails in poulaity in professional circle behind Fuji Velvia, Provia and digital formats. It is a good format, but without evidence, let us not state that it is the best, even if some of us do think so highly of it.

I love Fuji Velvia and think it is great, but would not like to see that written on Fuji Velvia article as it is an opinion.

If someone can cite evidence, based on specifications of the film that it is the best, then please do. Otherwise, let us stae it is a fine film, used by professionals for some time and has great longevity... all of which is citable FACTS! Canberra photographer (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• no one cares about you liking fuji velvia. just because you don't like Kodachrome doesn't mean you can remove information that sheds it in a positive light.Landcamera900 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the article MUST not indicate that Kodachrome is the 'best' film, as that is a totally subjective labelling that cannot be directly proved. BUT, I see no reason why the article cannot state that many photographers consider Kodachrome to be either the best, or among the best, films ever made. A citation could provide proof (or the lack thereof) of THAT statement. 69.206.67.213 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Kodachrome - Digital scanning and resolution[edit]

User Ckatz repeatedly deleted the last half of this paragraph Digital scanning an d resolution for the reason: 'rm. unsourced section that is being spammed w/software link'.
I rewrote it serveral times and added some references. Is it ok now ? What should be improved ? Sven Boisen (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

' In 2008, LaserSoft Imaging released a software-based infrared dust and scratch removal tool allowing every Nikon film scanner to make high quality scans of Kodachrome slides on Mac OS-X platforms.'<ref>[http://www.mactech.com/news/?p=1010500 MacTech Magazine] Kodachrome without dust and scratches</ref>

I can't find a review or something similar, but it's a known fact in the world of digital photographing and scanning. There are two ways two scan kodachromes with a dust & scratch removal function, iSRD or Nikon 9000 with ICE4. But, I can't proof this with serious reviews. Maybe someone else could and add theese later. Maybe this is a proper source ? Quote: The software also offers advanced features such as dust and scratch removal, (including on Kodachrome slides, which, due to their unique formulation, are normally an exception to the dust and scratch removal features of many film scanners). By the way, the deleted sentence above doesn't even mention that there is no other software-based solution, It just says that SilverFast is one. I can't understand why this shouldn't be ok. Sven Boisen (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Wikipedia requires verifiability. It may be a 'known fact' within an industry, but there has to be a way for the reader to confirm this. (Otherwise, anyone could make a claim to accuracy.) Beyond that, articles generally avoid listing specific examples of products to avoid the appearance of promoting one particular product. --

Article on demise of Kodachrome[edit]

AP article 'Is the rich-hued Kodachrome era fading to black?' [1]

Seems like it would contain useful information to refer to. Dave (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've seen this text in various places, and have used the Washington Post's copy. It's a syndicated Associated Press piece. Cheers. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup + Scanner section[edit]

I've been doing extensive cleanup work here. I'd like to remove the scanning section, as I doubt it has any relevance here, and there's a link to a scanner review. I've never noticed a problem scanning Kodachrome. So, can anyone substantiate this claim with good refs? I'll remove the promotional bits (Nikon etc), then if it's still here in a month, I'll come back and nuke the text. Comments? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this section is relevant. There are major problems trying to achieve high quality kodachrome scans (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Kodachrome.html). You'll notice that there are many people asking for help on the net. If you google 'scanning kodachrome' this wikipedia article is on the fourth position. So here could be a good place to provide some valuable information. Hyperhypo (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I'll have a scout around for more info when RL allows, and will refrain from nuking it. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Edit I can't find any references for this 'problem' that aren't either forums, personal pages or a site trying to sell something. What gives? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article written by professional photographer David Brooks. Citation: 'But my interest is not in current Kodachrome film use but in the millions of Kodachrome slides photographers have which until now have always been more or less of a challenge to scan. [...] So scans from Kodachrome can be difficult to color correct and adjust ideally sometimes reproducing odd color anomalies that are hard to eliminate.' Hyperhypo (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; blogs aren't very suitable sources, but in the absence of anything else i'll add it. I will keep looking though, thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)