Retrochrome Revisited

About a decade ago, I shot with a bunch of the Film Photography Project’s Retrochrome 320. At that time, the FPP was offering two types of Retrochrome as well as Wittnerchrome. All three were expired films that offered a different color palette at a time when Kodak was not even offering an Ektachrome option. The Retrochrome 160 and 320 were both expired industrial Kodak Ektachrome emulsions.  I did like the look of the Ektachrome 320 - it was a warm result with a nostalgic look.  

Over the past 50 years, I’ve shot hundreds of rolls of slide film and at one time, Kodachrome and various E-6 emulsions were pretty much the majority of what I was using. It was rare for me to shoot expired slide film, as I was doing a lot of nature/macro-photography, and I wanted my results to accurately depict my subjects.  My photography is a lot different now, and experimenting with odd emulsions is quite typical.  So, I was interested when Mike Raso announced that a new Retrochrome 400 was available from the FPP earlier this year (alas, now sold out).  I shot one roll with my Pentax 17 back in late July and early August, and the other roll was shot with my Pentax KX in Arizona during my October trip.  Both rolls were developed by Dwayne’s Photo in Parsons, KS.  I asked for the option of just receiving them sleeved and not mounted, as I have no intention of showing them via a slide projector.  It makes the scanning process a lot easier, as well. Dwayne’s did a great job with the 120 and 35mm E-6 film that I mailed to them, and the turnaround time was a week. At $8.50/roll for 35mm E-6 (unmounted and no scans), it’s a great price. 

All of the frames were scanned with my Epson V700 flatbed scanner at 3200 dpi. Edits were made in Corel Paint Shop Pro.  

Pentax 17 - I loaded this roll into my Pentax 17 while on a trip with Graham Young into Maggie Valley, NC  on July 18.  I set the ISO to 200, but should have set it to ISO 320 or 400.  Still, the results are pretty good, and the bonus is that I got twice as many shots on the roll.  The film is expired, so I expect some grain and loss of shadow detail, but I think it looks pretty darn good.    Here are a few samples from that roll.

Pentax KX - This is the camera that I purchased at Monument Camera in Tucson in mid-October.  I used it for all the color film that was shot on the rest of my trip.  The lens is the 50mm f/1.7 SMC Pentax.  I set the ISO to 320. The first few shot on the roll were taken in Lowell, Arizona - a sort of ghost town S of Bisbee.  Most of what I shot there was done with my Pentax 6x7, but these images from the KX and on the Retrochrome really do have a vintage look to them, and were perfect for the subjects.  The rest of the roll was shot at the Pima Air and Space Museum grounds where there are a LOT of vintage aircraft that you can walk up to and examine.  Again, the nostalgic look of this film was perfect was these aircraft, and it held up well under that bright Arizona sun. I probably should have set the ISO to 400 with this film, but I really dig the look.

I have one roll left of the Retrochrome 400, and I’ll keep it in my film fridge for a future subject that will be appropriate for the look that this film gives me.  There is no doubt that a good transparency film provides some amazing images.  Just being able to look at a roll of developed E-6 film is quite nice — those little brilliant scenes on the light table are something. No inversion needed to see the image as it should be.    

Don’t Over-think!

For the past few weeks, I have been scanning in 35mm slides from the 1970s.  These are not found images from the antique store, but from my camera, from 1975-1980.  One of my goals this year is to scan all my slides (or at least the best ones) from my early days of photography, and in the process, remove the slides from the clear plastic sleeves in binders, and transfer to metal storage boxes.   My scanner, my trusty Epson V700, does an excellent job with scanning in these colorful little windows to the past, and much more efficiently than using a digital camera to transfer the analog into  a digital image.  Trust me on this, as I have been scanning slides and negatives in various formats for as many years as we have had scanners available.  I also have all the equipment I need to copy via a DSLR. The workflow and the results via the Epson V700 are superior.    

The simple SLR that started me on my journey

Okay, let’s put the scanning aside, and have a conversation about the photographs, which is the real subject here.    My first 35mm camera was an Ihagee Exa 1a. Why?   As a gift for a teen interested in photography, it was possibly the cheapest new SLR available in 1974 from a NYC camera store, and I was thrilled with receiving it.    The downside with my Exa 1a is that it had a waist-level viewfinder, no meter, and a limited range of shutter speeds (1/30, 1/60, 1/125 and 1/175 sec. ).    In addition, the Meyer-Optic Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 lens is not what I would call a "great lens."  It was obviously good enough for a teenager learning about photography.    My only photography guide was the Kodak Pocket Exposure Guide, which I still have.    I did not have an external meter.  So, as I learned to photograph with this camera, I relied on that Kodak Pocket Exposure Guide for my settings.    I shot b&w film, color print film, and transparencies.    

fits in a back pocket

As I think back, I had to wonder why I shot slides so often after 1975, and my wife reminded me that it was probably the cost.    Believe me, the 70s were the last time a person with a low-income could live pretty well,  and I was a student with not much money.    As it turns out, it was cheaper to shoot slide film back then, as the film and processing was less expensive than color prints. I checked with a 1979 issue of Popular Photography, and the price to process and mount a 20 exposure roll of Ektachrome was less than $2.00, and the price of a roll of Ektachrome was probably around the same price. Some places offered a 20-exposure roll Ektachrome 64 for $3.65, including processing; about the same price as Kodachrome 64.  Since I was not in tune with the best offerings via mail (hey, no Internet then!!), I am pretty sure I purchased my film at the local drug store, Woolworth’s or K-Mart, and sent it out for processing.  In today’s dollars, that $3.65 translates to just less than $15.00, which would be pretty damn cheap now for a roll of film and processing!    

Feb. 1975. The view from the house I grew up in, Parishville, NY
Ektachrome.

In hindsight, I am happy that I chose to shoot the majority of my images on slides -- the colors have kept pretty well from those 1970s images, and because I didn’t have a lot of extra money, I didn’t shoot like I do now. However, it is also true that I was not a trained photographer with a plan.  In looking in these scanned images, I also realized one other thing - I did pretty damn well with the limited equipment that I owned, and my exposures were pretty much on target most of the time.  That means I used sunny-16 and intuition for all of my shots.    

That brings up the title for this entry - "Don’t Over-think." If I could use a really simple SLR nearly 50 years ago, with slide film, no meter, and 50mm f/2.8 lens, how is it that today, so many people are obsessed with the smallest details in exposures? I see newcomers to photography, especially film, needlessly obsessing over how much to adjust for a given exposure. While my Kodak Pocket Exposure Guide gave me the fundamentals, there is no absolute in photography.  Discerning the nuances in light and exposure, especially in landscapes, comes down to experience, but there is always the element of "luck."  Maybe I was just lucky many times, and certainly cannot attribute my results to experience.  The thing is, I didn’t over-think what I was doing. I believe that over-thinking is what kills creativity and the moment. As I look over these images from 1975-1979, I certainly find ones that could have used more exposure -- and the Exa 1a had a limited number of shutter speeds, including B, and I did not own a tripod.  Perhaps if I’d been given a camera like a Praktica SLR with a prism and a full range of shutter speeds, I would have been even more on target, but there’s no way to know that now.  

Feb. 1976, Syracuse Univ. dorms. A typical winter scene in
Syracuse, but with less snow. Kodachrome 64.

Maine, summer of 1976. Kodachrome 25

Amenia, NY, Jan. 1977. Ektachrome

Ice storm, Syracuse, NY. It was so bad we could skate on the
sidewalks. Feb. 1976, Kodachrome 64

When I replaced that Exa 1a with a Pentax MG in the early 1980s, I finally had a camera with an exposure meter -- but guess what?  Relying on that aperture-priority only camera also gave me some bad exposures, because I relied on the camera to get it right, instead of my intuition. Overall, it was a trade-off. Today, I am a much better photographer, and know when to adjust for a given lighting situation.  But still, in those spartan days of photography, my youth and  inexperience also allowed me to take a chance without worrying about failure. Sometimes I got it perfectly right, and sometimes I didn’t. For example, the photo taken at the SUNY ESF Woodsmen’s event in the fall of 1975 shows me that I wasn’t afraid to get close to the action - the couple on the 2-person crosscut saw with the wood chips flying towards the camera is captured pretty well. I’ll show some other examples with commentary, as well, but those old slides are also peeks back into the 70s of my college years.

SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry fall Woodsmen's
BBQ in Tully, NY.  Oct. 1975, Ektachrome.

October 1975, Chittenango falls, NY. Kodachrome 64

Syracuse Univ. football game at the old Archbold Stadium,
October 1975, Kodachrome 64.

So, my advice for those folks getting into photography is to shoot what you know - and learn from it. You don’t have to travel to exotic places for great photographs - everyday activities and your immediate surroundings will mean much more the farther removed you are from them. As I look over these old shots, I realize that I was living in the moment, and photographing what was important to me at the time. I didn’t do it for posterity - though now those images have value in seeing people and places at another time, I did it for me.    

Speaking of in the moment... Fall 1976, Syracuse, NY, Ektachrome

Overthinking your photography is a cruel blow to serendipity.    Be in the moment, trust your instincts, and don’t fret if your camera is one-stop off, or you don’t have the best lens money can buy, None of that matters.  People obsess over details that don’t matter in the long run.   If you have a photography exhibit, nobody will care what lens and camera you used, what film (if it was film), filter, or other attribute used to make the photograph. It’s all about the image. 

Algonquin Mountain summit, Adirondacks, NY
Summer 1977, Ektachrome

In high school, I wanted to be an entomologist, and that’s what I ended up becoming, and doing for 40 years. Nobody told me that I could have been a photographer - and had I taken photography seriously as a profession (which I never thought of), the 1970s would have been the most perfect time to be an aspiring photographer.    So, it was never my dream to be a photographer - I just enjoyed it. I look back at those images from the 70s and I am amazed that I did as well as I did with so little knowledge.    

That's me, summer of 1977, in the Adirondacks.
My camera, taken by my buddy, Dave Rosher. Ektachrome.

January 1977, Twin Lakes, CT. Ektachrome.

So, perhaps the lesson here is that not only should you not over-think it, but shoot for yourself.    Don't worry about what others might think.  All too often I see posts by people on places like Reddit (r/photography) who are unsure if they are good enough, or are afraid to take up photography because they lack knowledge.    You can’t get better without actually using your camera. Today’s digital and analog wonders will outperform what I used in the 70s by a huge margin. You already have tools at your disposal that will make a perfect exposure 90% of the time.  The part that makes the difference is YOU. Get out there and shoot everything that interests you, and over time you will discover what really motivates your photography, and what you enjoy the most. That’s the direction you’ll go. 

Big News... Ektachrome is back!

my last roll of Ektachrome* in
the fridge

Unless you have not been anywhere on the internet in the past week, you have undoubtedly heard the unexpected announcement by Kodak Alaris at the Consumer Electronics Show regarding the resuming of production of Ektachrome by Eastman Kodak later this year.  Yes, this IS a big deal.  It's rare for a manufacturer to reintroduce a discontinued product, let alone a film stock.  I hope the hype pans out, and that people buy this film -- a lot of it, in fact.  One may wonder why they would do this.  Well, since it is a color-reversal film, development results in a positive image, which translates well for the 16mm movie market.  It's a niche, for sure, but so is Super-8, which also would benefit from this.  I think the still-photography folks will also appreciate having another option, too.

Up until now, Fuji has been the only manufacturer still offering slide film.  Their Fuji Velvia 50 and Velvia 100, and Provia 100 and Provia 400 films are terrific, and if you are shooting nature, those films are perfect.  Meanwhile, Ferrania is trying to restart their factory, and until they actually produce a product (and I think they will), it is just what we used to call "vaporware" in the software industry.  Eastman Kodak, however, has the facilities, the formulas, and the expertise already in place, so I fully expect Ektachrome 100 to appear this fall.  I would love to be one of the first people to get samples!

I also think that the continuing interest in shooting film has played a role (many many rolls!) in this decision.  Lomography has been selling slide film, which I believe is remaining stocks of Kodak Ektachrome, and perhaps Fuji, as well. The only way to tell is to look at the film box, which will state where the film was manufactured (USA = Kodak, Japan=Fuji).  Even the so-called Agfa Precisa is rebranded Fujichrome (correct me if I am wrong).  While I question how much slide film will be used in the commercial realm, the enthusiast market is growing again, and a smaller, more efficient Kodak operation can fill that niche.

I don't want to count the number of rolls of slide film (aka "color reversal film") I have shot in 45 years of photography.  I did however, take a glance through some of my files of slide images, and I can see where I shot a ton of Fuji Astia and Provia, Kodak Kodachrome, and to a lesser extent, Ektachrome.  I pondered about that for a bit, but I suspect it was most likely due to price, and film specials, etc.  It may also have been cyclical -- I can see where I shot a lot of Ektachrome in a given year.  Of course, in the last decade, any slide film I shot was primarily whatever I could find and it usually was not the same kinds of subjects what I was shooting in the early 2000s.  Back then, I was doing a lot of nature and macro photography.  That's primarily what I use digital for now.  For me, street, architecture, and colorful subjects--slide film is a pretty darn good medium.  The trouble is, the local E-6 labs died off, and I had to send it out, and the development price was about $12/roll, including the postage.  So, of course, until more recently, I shot very little of it.  Now that I can do E-6 at home with the Unicolor kit, my price of development of a roll is about $3.   As a result, I am more likely to shoot more E-6 in the coming months.  I have been shooting the Retrochrome 320 from the FPP store, and while I like it, it is expired Ektachrome of some sort.  So again, having a true ISO 100 slide film from Kodak will be greatly appreciated.

If you have not ever shot slide film in 35mm or 120, you might ask "why all the fuss?"  There is something quite magical about holding a "chrome" in your hand.  The bigger the format, the more outstanding the positive color image.  You do not need an intermediary process to see the image (i.e. a negative needs to be scanned  or printed to see the positive image.  With a color reversal film, it's all there right in front of you.

So, to Kodak, I say, bring it on!!

*Elite chrome was the consumer version of professional Ektachrome.  Under the Kodak Professional branding, we had Ektachrome 100G, 100VS, etc.  The all-purpose Elite chrome 100 was a good film, and the edge markings are EB100.   You can find out more about the various types of chrome films here.   

If you are interested in seeing a lot of Ektachrome shots online, visit the Flickr Ektachrome group.