Spicy Roasted Chickpeas
Picnic Recipes Galore
Corner-Store Party Food on the Fly
9 Chili Recipes, Bison to Vegan
How to Choose the Best Strawberries
Sausage Recipes of the Month
First, major respect to anyone who has shot food spreads on film in the last 50 years. Shooting our Last Kodachrome Christmas was an unexpected challenge. Our photographer, Chris Rochelle, came up with the concept. He bought the film on eBay; it was at least a year old and we didn't know if it would even work. So we shot in digital as well, just in case. Here are some of our outtakes, notes about what was going on behind the scenes, and a comparison between the digital and Kodachrome versions.
Rustic Tavern
Jeremy LaCroix, our creative director, standing in as a prop holder so we could get perfect placement on the gun. That gun was so heavy.
Amy Wisniewski, CHOW's associate food editor, gets those oranges into perfect razor-sharp shape.
Kodachrome: We love how Kodachrome exaggerated the texture and color of the bird. The green cast to the wood was totally unexpected.
Digital: The oranges look so washed out compared to the really deep color in the Kodachrome shot. Overall there's more of a blue cast in this photo, and less richness in the reds.
There's no question...everything in photography is an issue of balance: lighting, exposure, processing and final reproduction medium are all influenced by and influence the choices the various technicians make. K'chrome film was known as the least forgiving color film to handle in the camera and in the lab and was quite sensitive to poor storage conditions.
If you got a good image on Ektachrome...+READ
There's no question...everything in photography is an issue of balance: lighting, exposure, processing and final reproduction medium are all influenced by and influence the choices the various technicians make. K'chrome film was known as the least forgiving color film to handle in the camera and in the lab and was quite sensitive to poor storage conditions.
If you got a good image on Ektachrome (or any other E-6 processed film) it would reproduce well in print but perhaps be a bit weak as a projected image; if you got a good shot on Kodachrome it was great as a projected transparency as well as a reproduced image. That said, the most important difference between the two types of color-positive film is in their stability: Ektachrome film produces a chemical dye image subject to deterioration over time due to environmental factors; Kodachrome images are metallic dyes which tend to be much more stable. THAT'S why you can look at 50-year-old K'chromes and see rich images even if the physical media were casually stored, whereas similarly aged E'chromes will have lost a lot of their image quality even if stored under controlled conditions. All transparency films, however, are soon on the way out...digital images can be "tweaked" to reproduce beautifully and when was the last time you and your family sat in a darkened room and watched your vacation slides projected on a screen. Anybody out there even own a slide projector? -usetashoot-COLLAPSE
many of us remember how "fresh" kodachrome was fairly consistent. but grabbing an old roll from a shelf in some tourist trap was a crap shoot. i gotta say, however, some of my favorite images aren't color-pure in any sense. more like i remember than reality - a little saturated, sweeter and warmer.
Also you showing living proof that film stock like this is also can be very "Inconsistent" as well as hard to replicate let alone on old film stock.. Seriously God only knows how that digital image work flow individual steps are done to get the image you are showing here above. "Partly the reason us commercial film shooters back in the day used to shoot only chromes or trans" because what you...+READ
Also you showing living proof that film stock like this is also can be very "Inconsistent" as well as hard to replicate let alone on old film stock.. Seriously God only knows how that digital image work flow individual steps are done to get the image you are showing here above. "Partly the reason us commercial film shooters back in the day used to shoot only chromes or trans" because what you shot is what you got especially in "Exposure" you could not be as much as a 1/2 a stop off and it would look completely different. "For you digital shooters 1/2 a stop on a push and pull snip test" that should keep you newbies head spinning for a while. Trust me Kodachrome is no magic elixir its far from perfect and far from being able to be replicated on digital. Most digital these days can run circles around the old film.. I know I shot it for 15 years.-COLLAPSE
Uh but you really are not making a fair comparison.. For one your using old film stock which we used to call back in the old days "Color Crossover" This also was highly depend on the way that film was stored in its life not just that its expired. 2nd also the way it was developed. 3rd and lastly how the digital was color balanced via light source the camera settings and a 100 other possibilities....+READ
Uh but you really are not making a fair comparison.. For one your using old film stock which we used to call back in the old days "Color Crossover" This also was highly depend on the way that film was stored in its life not just that its expired. 2nd also the way it was developed. 3rd and lastly how the digital was color balanced via light source the camera settings and a 100 other possibilities. I used to shoot chrome on 4x5 sheet film and even batch to batch of film stock changed. I used to do snip test and got different color shifts just from a nitrogen burst dip and dunk system processing it to a roller system processing it. So you really are not giving a fair comparison to Digital versus Kodachrome.. Not that I like digital more than chrome or vice versus its just that you were sort of not making a correct or fair comparison of them both.-COLLAPSE
Thank you CHOW. You graphically depict the argument that many of us film photographers have tried to make to our digital friends lo these many years. Maybe some software wizard will be inspired and develop a program that replicate the wonderful features of Kodachrome in the cyber world.
I know the digital fans here will say the same thing...'you can make it look like that in digital!'. Yeah, we all get that. The magic and charm of film stock is the fact that each film had its own distinct personality. Digital might be a blank canvas in a way, but film adds its own life and personality. I love it. RIP Kodachrome!
I love the photography in old cookbooks--and now I understand why. Thank you, Chow team, for this lovely homage.
marieloua, yes, this photo shoot was deliberately retro. Heres the link to the actual photoshoot spread where if you look below each image you can view the 1950's and 60's magazine spreads we are paying homage to.
http://www.chow.com/food-news/67472/the-last-kodachrome-christmas/?tag=holiday_eyebrow;holiday_eyebrow_content
And you're right! with some simple post-production on the digital image I...+READ
marieloua, yes, this photo shoot was deliberately retro. Heres the link to the actual photoshoot spread where if you look below each image you can view the 1950's and 60's magazine spreads we are paying homage to.
http://www.chow.com/food-news/67472/the-last-kodachrome-christmas/?tag=holiday_eyebrow;holiday_eyebrow_content
And you're right! with some simple post-production on the digital image I could have made the image look almost any way I saw fit and a zillion times different than the Kodachrome image. My intent though was not really to show how we can excel with digital photography but an attempt to show some of the beautiful nuances and characteristics that Kodachrome as it disappears this year.
Chris of CHOW-COLLAPSE
I don't see how you can compare Kodachrome with a badly processed digital image.
Using basic image editing software or Lightroom you could make the digital image look a million times better or match it to the Kodachrome, just as you wish.
The lighting for this shot is pretty old fashioned - deliberately retro?? But if you wanted to make it really sing some good colour balancing and a bit of...+READ
I don't see how you can compare Kodachrome with a badly processed digital image.
Using basic image editing software or Lightroom you could make the digital image look a million times better or match it to the Kodachrome, just as you wish.
The lighting for this shot is pretty old fashioned - deliberately retro?? But if you wanted to make it really sing some good colour balancing and a bit of creative dodging and burning in Lightroom could produce a really interesting result from either of these lack lustre images.-COLLAPSE
Well, I can't comment in any substantial way on the technical conversation that has developed here about films, camera's, etc. As a purely artistic person - who owns both a film camara (which I wish I used more, now that I see this!), and a digital which frustrates me often - I am SO deeply moved and already sad that this shoot came so late in the life of Kodachrome. Where were we all (Chow and...+READ
Well, I can't comment in any substantial way on the technical conversation that has developed here about films, camera's, etc. As a purely artistic person - who owns both a film camara (which I wish I used more, now that I see this!), and a digital which frustrates me often - I am SO deeply moved and already sad that this shoot came so late in the life of Kodachrome. Where were we all (Chow and it's audience) a year ago to do this so that we could keep this medium alive? I sense that we might not have seen the loss possible of a choice in medium, without such a side-by-side comparison as this offers us between the digital and Kodachrome.
I should read further, and am wondering about settings on pics; to if they are the same, and these are the side-by-side 'same setting with different results' of the two mediums. I haven't checked because I would expect that to be THE POINT of the experiment...
Suffice it to say, I believe I will bring my film camera into the kitchen and the holiday gatherings this Christmas season, if only for a last time - to get those shadows, depths, lovely highlights and delicous looking shots- with depth that I love.
From reading and interacting with this CHOW demonstration and wonderful story idea - I see I have not noticed the 'creep" of my after-editing" I do with my digital pics of food, travel, people since I went that way 15 years ago. I think back, and realize that the way it looked, looked back at me in the pictures. Now, I often have to adjust the images to show me what I remembered I saw. I just spent hours doing this from a France/Spain trip.
I didn't even know I was missing something I had lost. Thanks CHOW, I appreciate the memorial I have attended, when I didn't even realize that something important was dying.
This is not a day of progress, in my book - just loss.-COLLAPSE
Me, the Home econonmist, teaching, color, texture, flavor, makes a well balanced plate of food LOOK Good for appeal to the TasteBuds, can relate to the visual appeal of Kodachrome, vs. digital. Any thing greyish, is a 1/10 for taste or visual appeal. My husband a freelance photographer, had a hard time switching from film to digital, cuz of the lack of immediate SHARPNESS!!!!!
As a food blogger, I am fascinated by this. I love the look of some of the Kodachrome shots, but it also makes me happy that I can easily adjust things in post-processing with digital.
Hi Deborah L from Chow,
Thanks for your note about the Cameras used. Now I have a Nikon Nikormat and it is still a great camera which I use occasionally. The reason I bought it used some years ago?
This is because a) you get a lot of camera for your money and b) with Nikon Film cameras what you see through the viewfinder is exactly what you see on film. Now this can be vitally important for a...+READ
Hi Deborah L from Chow,
Thanks for your note about the Cameras used. Now I have a Nikon Nikormat and it is still a great camera which I use occasionally. The reason I bought it used some years ago?
This is because a) you get a lot of camera for your money and b) with Nikon Film cameras what you see through the viewfinder is exactly what you see on film. Now this can be vitally important for a food photographer working to a budget and therefore shooting in 35 mm or full frame digital such as the Canon Camera you mentioned which is one of the best, but way beyond my budget I'm afraid.
Sorry I missed the info on the cameras at the bottom of the piece.-COLLAPSE
Hi chef de photo.
The cameras used in the Kodachrome shoot are mentioned on the last page of this behind-the-scenes post:
"We shot all the film with a Nikon Nikkormat and the digital with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III."
Hope that helps.
Deborah from CHOW
I cannot agree with the comment that Kodachrome is less good than Digital. For me it depends what you are shooting. if I am shooting stuff at night then it would have to be digtal because wonderful films like Anscochrome 500 disappeared years ago and they were grainy to boot. Kodachrome in it's various guises over the years is one of the finest grained slide films available However to shoot...+READ
I cannot agree with the comment that Kodachrome is less good than Digital. For me it depends what you are shooting. if I am shooting stuff at night then it would have to be digtal because wonderful films like Anscochrome 500 disappeared years ago and they were grainy to boot. Kodachrome in it's various guises over the years is one of the finest grained slide films available However to shoot outdoors in conditions where you have a lot of colours in a scene and under the right lighting conditions Kodachrome really is a fantastic film. I have to say that for landscapes Fuji Velvia is better. The main problem is that the Yellow God ( Kodak) appeared to loose the plot some years ago as far as film of any type is concerned. However at the big photographic trade show held in Cologne in Germany on a biannual basis, Photokina 2010, Kodak announced some new negative films so you see film is not dead.
By the way the public are most welcome at Photokina and Cologne and the area around the city is great for foodies also and as for the transportation it is fantastic.
Digital is great for what I would term 'happysnaps', but it is not correct to say that film is for or was for the wealthy. Very good quality 'high end film cameras can be had these days for quite reasonable prices secondhand if one shops carefully.
I would like to know what camera these shots were made on and also what camera was used for the digital photos and also some of the exposure and lighting details.
High end Digital SLR's as used by the press and other professional photographers really do cost eye watering amounts of money many thousands of Pounds or Dollars for our US friends. Cameras are made to a price and consumer SLR's and compact digital compacts and so called bridge cameras are made of plastic so don't drop them please.
Unless you have printed from glass plates in a darkroom, now that is old fashioned technology, you don't know what a quality black and white photo looks like. Sorry digital, you cannot compete with your wishy washy greys and blacks. I used to do so professionally.
I am a self confessed foodie having been trained as a chef also so I think the images are great and not too overdone with the usual food photo tricks.
By the way Kodachrome keeps well past it's so called sell by date especially if it is re-frigerated. Processing of the film will continue for the foreseeable future as long as people send film in. Here in the UK we have to send the film to Switzerland from where it is sent to the US. Logical or what?-COLLAPSE
0I'm with Pipenta on this one... especially on that last shot, with two very different exposures being used (look at your DoF) -- inaddition to that, the tablecloth texture that is "lost" is caused in part by the shift in the frame, and folds in the cloth. Personally I find the KodaChrome is way too blue/green.
I'm not sure I'm buying your conclusion here, that the film inherently provides a better image than digital.
Film is designed to perform under a given set of circumstances. There's an ideal amount of light needed to activate the sensitive chemicals and you get to combine certain factors to achieve that: how big the aperture, how long the exposure. Likewise, film will respond to different colors...+READ
I'm not sure I'm buying your conclusion here, that the film inherently provides a better image than digital.
Film is designed to perform under a given set of circumstances. There's an ideal amount of light needed to activate the sensitive chemicals and you get to combine certain factors to achieve that: how big the aperture, how long the exposure. Likewise, film will respond to different colors of light.
With digital film, you have more options, you can tweak it more easily. There may have been a time when film automatically trumped digital, but that is not so clear now.
Overall, I'd have to describe digital is a win because it takes photography out of the hands of the wealthy. (You really did have to spend a lot of money to shoot a lot, to process a lot, to get any good. Even if you are bulk loading and rolling your own film, it gets expensive fast.) When people shoot more, they see more. They get better.
This might be the clue that explains why there is such nostalgia for Kodachrome. Digital makes photography less exclusive. You can now be pretty damn good at it and not be one of an elite group. That does not make film better.
Did you know that after Kodak developed Plus-X and Tri-X, they wanted to take Pan-X off the market? The new film was every bit as good, yet faster. But there was an outcry from photographers who claimed that the old film was better. It wasn't. But Kodak figured, wtf, and kept it on the market. (I may have confused the names of the films, it's been decades since I was shooting every day.)
The point is, the old film had a reputation, a mystique, that it did not deserve technically. Many photographers like gear and gadgets and such more than the images made with them. It is often the same way with brand loyalty. I'm partial to Canons because they're pretty sturdy and reliable and I've had good experiences with them (except for the death of a D-10 due to a fatal lens error, which is the real problem with digitals). But when it comes to lenses, I will never forget Paul Krot's observation that whatever the brand, all the optics come out of a barrel and you have to pick up the damn thing and look through it. But even that might be an outdated observation because I'm sure there are all kinds of techy inspection systems in place. Heh. Technology, like digital photography...
In any event, I think you'd have to shoot each image under a variety of lighting in order to make a more convincing case. I've seen some pretty phenomenal results with digital, using only a point & shoot, things that hold up to some really good SLR film stuff from back in the day. I'm sure that given the right light, you could get all the values you want out of the digital.
And that green is really bilious.-COLLAPSE
Ektachrome was always bluer than kodachrome which was known as a "hot" film, favoring reds and browns. Fujichrome was a truer to the eye film IIRC.
Pro digital images usually require post-processing. RAW images straight out of the camera will often look pretty dull but they're not meant to be used like that.
One of the most fascinating things I have looked at in a while. I fear we are losing so much richness to the death of "analog" in so many different areas... music, video, photo, even reading. Ahh, progress... Thanks so much for doing this!
Fascinating - I wonder if the settings on a good digital camera could be adjusted to approximate the Kodachrome (which I AM old enough to have used for many family photos).
Very cool to see the side by side pictures - puts digital to shame.
Jacquilynne - you're so right lol. This was a fascinating post. Thank you!
Chris, this is what you dad has been telling you all along, we love our film, but seriously the pictures look beautiful and we're not that old!
Question: Have you tried simulate the kodachrome's characteristics in post-processing? To what degree did you succeed?
Reading this story suddenly made all those 70s appliance colors make a lot more sense. I bet Harvest Gold and Avodcado really pop when photographed on Kodachrome film.