That wasn't my experience using them both for 20+ years, although it's
somewhat skew from what I said, and not specific enough.
The difference was that pro-kodachrome was pre-aged, tested and
intended to be stored cold with a short expiration date to keep
absolute consistency as high as possible. It was intended to be used
in a studio situation, not in the field. It will shift as much as
consumer kodachrome *of a similar age* will. Consumer K was shipped
raw (without aging or testing).
When pro-K is subjected to high heat conditions, you run into the fact
that it's a pre-aged film with a short expiration date. This makes it
natural that it will lose some consistency in those conditions, but
only as much as the consumer K.
Color accuracy on either was more a factor of the processing work as
color couplers are added in the processing with Kodachrome, they're
not embedded in the film like they are with Ektachrome emulsions. A
good pro-lab could take a testing snip of your film, run it, do some
densitometry on it against a reference strip, and calibrate the
processing to match your needs. I don't know if anyone is doing this
kind of service anymore: film is still dead, you know. ]'-)
Overall, both pro and consumer K is a very stable film with
outstanding acutance, grain and color permanence. The increased number
of layers in Ektachrome cost it some acutance; color consistency and
grain was never in the same ballpark.
G
On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Godfrey,
The comments I heard led me to believe the non-pro Kodachrome was more
robust than the pro version, with more consistent colors and less
aging & heat problems.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
