Emil Pozar wrote:
> IMO, K25 *is* better than K64, I can tell one to another with little
> difficulty.
I agree with Emil, but K64 has gotten incrementally better over the
years. K25 does have more moderate contrast, and also, at the finest
level, the ability to show textures and skin with more richness. In
particular, the rendering of skin tones and patina is what sets K25
apart for me. And, this obsession with RMS granularity ratings has
overlooked the superior "edge effect" that Kodachrome gives, and that
really breathes life into an image in everyday viewing. That's one
reason it's the film of choice in stereo imagery. Train and aircraft
buffs love the stuff. (Mandatory OT/OSS content)
Worth mentioning is the traditional 1 1/3 stop push that Kodak offered
from the beginning. Every time Kodak brought out a faster version, it
was making the push official...ASA 25 from 10, ASA 64 from 25, and ASA
200 from 64 (close enough) I think the standard push of K200 is still
to an EI of about 500 or 640. BTW, K200 is one of the most overlooked
films because of its poor grain, and yet one of the most satisfying to
use, for the above reasons. The skin color balance with electronic
flash is great. Nobody seems to use K200 much, which is nice for me
because there's often a bunch of outdated stock at my camera store at
half price. Maybe it's because colors are added at processing that I've
used past-date K14 with no problems.
I also agree with Jan about the candy-color palette of E6. If you're
used to Kodachrome, then all E6 looks "funny".
Morgan Sparks
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|