P3D Re: Silver Oxide

[SHIELDS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The Nimslo batteries are 386, which is a silver oxide battery. I'm
not aware of a direct alkaline replacement, and I'm certainly not
about to look for one!

A 200 speed film certainly does help the Nimslo with its problems
of 1/30 second bottom shutter speed and wider lens openings in lower
light. 400 would be even better, but I've often heard that there just
aren't any good 400-speed slide films out there. I have used the
Kodachrome 200 for a long time and for full-frame 35mm it was just
fine for grain and sharpness. I also like the color better than any
other film I have ever tried, except for Kodachrome II, which is of
course long gone. When I started using Kodachrome 64, after Kodachrome II
was discontinued, I found that using it with an 81A filter gave results
close to Kodachrome II. I didn't like Kodachrome 25 by comparison,
and was happy to gain the increased speed.

Kodachrome 200 gives its good colors in all kinds of light, and is
especially remarkable under fluorescent light, where it is _much_
better than any other slide film I have tried or heard of. It's
not perfect, of course, and slight filtration can improve rendition
under flourescent (1A) or in the shade, but it usually isn't necessary
and I certainly don't have the time (I know others may and hope
they are pleased with whatever filters they use).

I have been more uncomfortable with Kodachrome 200's grain since
I started shooting stereo, so have been using some Kodachrome 64,
still with the 81A filter. Shooting this way, the two films are
similar, but not exactly the same.

I have been noting, to my displeasure, that very white highlights
in Kodachrome 64 still have a magenta cast to them. This can
be mostly eliminated with careful exposure as the film has more
latitude than the 200. Certainly the increased sharpness and lack
of grain have pleased me, and I have at least a dozen Kodachrome 64
slides I've taken since last summer that are excellent and show no
trace of magenta highlights.

I've been racking my brain for ways to jump to a larger format, especially
the European (FED, etc.) so I can keep on using Kodachrome 200 for
all my shots, but from long ago I have been used to concentrating
on one subject or a few--not having a lot of stuff in the scene. I almost
always used an 85mm lens for flat shooting, and the 50mm for the
half-frame format is about the same. I just don't want to go to
a 35-38mm lens for a 24X30 image--much too far from 85mm. I also just
don't want to twin a couple of SLR's--too bulky, too expensive.

So, Kodachrome 64 for more detail and stereo effect when I can,
especially for scenic shots, and Kodachrome 200 for fast-moving
people shots and dim light.

I've never quite liked the grain structure of E6 films--kind of
mushy--although certainly much improved over the years. Used some
100-speed Ektachrome for test shots, and also a roll of Elite 200.
I can't say either one was a bad film, but just weren't to my
preference. In particular the Elite 200 has lower contrast than
Kodachrome 200. Some folks may like that; I don't. There is also
just something about the Ektachrome palette that isn't the same
as the Kodachrome. But if they stop making Kodachrome, I won't
quit taking pictures!  :-)

Mark Shields

   |\	   _,,,---,,_
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
  |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
shields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netcom.com/~northws1/stmatt.htm
"Let the little children come to Me," Jesus said, "and don't keep
 them away. The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
  -Matthew 19:14



------------------------------