From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:28:38 GMT

In article <54570@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) writes:
>A while ago, I submitted some Velvia slides to a magazine in hopes of getting
>them published.  The slides were recently returned to me with an unsatisfactory
>reason as to why they won't publish them.  They told me that they prefer 
>Kodachrome because it reproduces much better than Velvia. ..........Why is
>there a seeming bias against Velvia and for Kodachrome?  

The reason, I believe, can be expressed in one word:  Tradition.

Go back 15, 20 or 30 years.  The color slide world consisted of Kodachrome
and some other films which weren't worthy of serious consideration.  Anybody
who wanted to sell to publishers shot Kodachrome.  Period.  So a whole 
generation of editors, art directors, color separators and printers got used
to Kodachrome and the way it reproduced.  Their equipment was tuned to it,
and they knew how to handle it.  It is only in the last few years that 
serious contenders to Kodachrome have emerged.  But many of the above-mentioned
people are reluctant to consider new films when Kodachrome has served them well
and which might require them to recalibrate their procedures.

But things are changing.  Look at Outdoor Photographer, for example.  The last
time I looked at films used, it was about 50% Kodachrome and 50% E-6 Films.
And the colors on some Velvia shots are stunning!  What I'm trying to say is
that there are some excellent alternatives if one doesn't want to shoot 
Kodachrome, but it may take some time for Kodachrome's inertia to die down
among the publishing people.

I shot Kodachrome 25 for 20 years, and was very familiar with it.  I tried
the first offering of Kodachrome 64 in 1963.  Junk.  I stayed with Kodachrome
until about 1980 when I just couldn't stand the purple skies and high
contrast any more (this was before my darkroom days, so method of processing
wasn't a factor).  I discovered Fujichrome and started using it.  At that 
time I started processing E-6 and wanted a film available in bulk, which
Fujichrome wasn't.  Ektachrome 64 and 200 proved unsatisfactory (ED and EPD
200 were just too blue, and still are).  In recent years I have settled in
on Fujichrome 100 (RDP) and Ektachrome 100 N (EPN).  I find them both very
honest, neutral, and have gotten thousands of great slides.  

During my film searching days, I decided to give Kodachrome one last, honest
try (about 1984).  Using two identical cameras and switching the lens between
cameras, I shot various scenes using Kodachrome and Fujichrome.  The Fuji
was a little warm, but showed life in green foliage and was pleasing on
skin tones.  The Kodachrome's greens were dead, and skin tones showed a 
bluish purple cast.  BTW, the Kodachrome was processed by Kodak, pre-
Kodalux days.  

Looking at MY choices today, I would choose the E-6 films without hesitation.
My film costs me ~$3.50/roll(36), and I can have slides hanging up to dry
an hour after I walk into my darkroom.  No wait, no running around, no
worry about someone else losing, damaging or goofing up my slides.  I don't
think that I could ever be comfortable going back to Kodachrome, and the
associated cost, wait and worry.  If Kodachrome went away, I wouldn't
shed any tears.  [No flames please; these are my own opinions.  And everyone
is entitled to his/her opinion.]

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah

Newsgroups: rec.photo