This is sort of recent - about as recent as it gets for Kodachrome. This was shot on W. Adams St. in L.A., an area I find quite interesting visually. K64, processed at Dwayne's and scanned on the Howtek. The last batches of Kodachrome seemed to scan much easier than earlier film. The blacks didn't go as blue as film from twenty or thirty years ago, and the newest K64 also seemed just a tad sharper than the older emulsions. This was shot with a Canon 24mm TSE II.
Peter Figen wrote:
This is sort of recent - about as recent as it gets for Kodachrome. This was shot on W. Adams St. in L.A., an area I find quite interesting visually. K64, processed at Dwayne's and scanned on the Howtek. The last batches of Kodachrome seemed to scan much easier than earlier film. The blacks didn't go as blue as film from twenty or thirty years ago, and the newest K64 also seemed just a tad sharper than the older emulsions. This was shot with a Canon 24mm TSE II.
Wrong white balance, halos from sharpening, blocked shadows and blown highlights.....
Kidding of course. Looks incredibly pure. I wish I had tried Kodachrome . I'd love the real 50's 8x10 vintage back. So many people would. Of course that process is long dead.
Older post: Simon Kennedy wrote:
Use Colorperfect.
That way you will get repeatability, and you can learn more accurately how a particular film will begave with a particular exposure in particular lighting. Also you will be able to fine tune your developing.
Well you were right. I broke down and bought it. It's just so much easier and the tonality is often leagues better than my curves methods. Sometimes the color is still off a bit but then again I am developing myself and using a vintage uncoated soft focus Verito so......most likely theres something funky with those negatives . But colorperfect colorneg rocks.
Peter Figen wrote:
This is sort of recent - about as recent as it gets for Kodachrome. This was shot on W. Adams St. in L.A., an area I find quite interesting visually. K64, processed at Dwayne's and scanned on the Howtek. The last batches of Kodachrome seemed to scan much easier than earlier film. The blacks didn't go as blue as film from twenty or thirty years ago, and the newest K64 also seemed just a tad sharper than the older emulsions. This was shot with a Canon 24mm TSE II. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/35/694335.jpg
I dunno, Peter. You have over exposure and under exposure in the same negative and no drum scanner can remedy that. And that is a very unflattering image of a building, first of all with a 24mm and that close the distortion is nasty and every flake in her paint shows due to sharpening.
Yeah, and there's that little white speck in the sky I forgot to spot out. You know, you get white specks with film sometimes, and sometimes you just get the moon. I think I'll go and reshoot cuz this sucks.
Zalmy, I disagree! Lots of great shots, but a bit of pushy processing is needed to really bring it out! Black to white to make it pop, but you have mostly greys. More contrast. Great family and kid shots.
. I'd love the real 50's 8x10 vintage back. So many people would. Of course that process is long dead. 
