[photo-3d] Pushed ProviaF100 vs. Kodachrome 200

["Jim Harp" <matmail2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few years ago I took Mark Shield's suggestion and tried using Kodachrome
200 in my Nimslo set to 100 speed.  I was thrilled with the accuracy of the
exposures and colors, but  there was a lot of grain when viewed in a Red
Button.  Recently I urged Mark to try shooting a roll of ProviaF100 and
pushing it one stop - what follows are excerpts from our e-mail discussions,
which I post with Mark's permission.

>From Mark:
The pushed 100F is clearly the best E6 film I have ever used.
Grain and sharpness are definitely on par with Kodachrome 64.
Given that I exposed it at 200, this is truly remarkable.
Since getting into stereo, I have certainly found Kodachrome 200's
grain to be more of a problem. This is the reason I have been
using the 64 when I can, after not using it for many years.
I definitely prefer the pushed 100F to Elite Chrome 200.
If Kodachrome ever disappears, and assuming 100F is still
available, that is what I will use. I did not find that the
100F has any cyan cast. Perhaps this is if you don't push it?
Out of this roll I did get one truly fabulous, breathtaking facial
portrait of one of our second graders. This was with the Pentax
beamsplitter mounted to an Olympus 50mm f/1.8 on an Olympus OM-10.

Now for the other side. Nothing is perfect, and definitely none
of the Kodachromes!  :-)  Color rendition can be a very personal
consideration. Beyond that, however, is a film's ability to
handle variations in lighting without using filters to compensate
for color shifts. Kodachrome 200 is the absolute best slide film
I have ever found in this regard. Fiddling with filters is never
fun, but it is particularly annoying with a beamsplitter since
the splitter must be removed before the filter can be installed. (Nimslos
don't take filters very well either!)
Under fluorescent, the pushed 100F was about as green as any other
E6 film I've ever tried. Kodachrome 64 even does better, although
with its slow speed I certainly wouldn't try under most
circumstances! The pushed 100F is also more blue in the shade
than Kodachrome 200. There were also some shots in sunlight where
skin tones turned yellow, which was most annoying when there
were patches of sunlight coming through tree branches, making
yellow patches on a face. One particular red dress stood out
as if it were glowing. A white blouse in the shade also stood out
from the rest of the shot with greenish highlights. Overall the
colors seemed somewhat more saturated than Kodachrome 64 or 200,
and somewhat less accurate. Personally I find the Kodachrome saturation
and accuracy to be closer to what I saw when I took the
picture.

So for "one film" it is still Kodachrome 200, and use 64 whenever
I can. I like the 200 so much because I can use it in the OM-10
anywhere, anytime, in any light, without a filter. Its excellent
performance in fluorescent light is especially important because
of all the fluorescent lights at school. The OM-10's stepless
electronic shutter dips down to 1/15 second or so with the
greatest of ease, while I hold the camera steady with a chest
tripod. With 200 speed film, using a fluorescent filter isn't
much of an option for available light--that shutter will gladly
go down to 1 or 2 full seconds to compensate for the heavy filter
factor, but the subject won't hold still, nor can I very well,
even with a chest tripod!  :-)  I don't like the
K200 grain, but it's a tradeoff and I choose the factor of good
color in different lighting without filters . As for K64, it is sharper
and less grainy than the 200, but overall I like the 200
color better. Actually, there are those who share my opinion that
Kodachrome II was the best one they ever made, but of course it
had a speed of only 25; in any event it isn't made any longer.

Now the rumored Provia400F could be a very interesting film! I've heard
that a faster film tends to handle variations in lighting better
(100F pushed to 200 is still actually a 100 speed film), and
I've heard this about Kodachrome 200 as well as Gold Max 800.
So the 400F could be a winner in this category, plus still having
finer grain than Kodachrome 200. It would make a Nimslo very
useful indoors. At 1/30 and f/5.6, Kodachrome 200 just doesn't
cut it where I shoot. A 400-speed film would be just right!
(I have thought of pushing the Kodachrome 200, but have never
heard it said that it worked any more than passably well.)

My reply:
I also have found that Provia tends to exaggerate reds - I've seen some
surreal
renditions of roses taken with it.  Personally I can't get past the grain
with Kodachrome
200, so my Nimslo's on a steady diet of pushed Provia 100F.  Have you ever
tried 400
speed film in a Nimslo set to "400"?   I'm curious to try Provia 400F in
there.  I would then be
able to use the less expensive Fuji slide mailers - unlike A&I, Fuji doesn't
do push
processing.

Mark:
Actually, when I was shooting full frame
flat slides, and projecting them, the grain wasn't a problem with
Kodachrome 200--for me, it was "perfect." But with half-frame
beamsplitter and a viewer, it's a different story. If everyone
abandons Kodachrome 200, they'll quit making it instead of maybe
improving it.

It seems to me, and I don't know, because I'm not a qualified
engineer who makes film, that there must be something inherent
in the Fuji manufacturing process that causes the exaggerated
reds, etc. I hope they are trying to overcome that.

I also think it's very obvious to everyone that Kodak is not
trying to improve Kodachrome. Since it is really a three-layer
black-and-white film without any dyes until processing, it has
a big inherent advantage in sharpness and color fidelity. I think
if Kodak tried, they could beat everyone. For years Kodachrome
was the unquestioned best slide film. But they rested on their
laurels. (I know there were environmental concerns, too.)
Kodachrome 64 was introduced about 1974, and Kodachrome 200 about
1987. Neither film has been changed significantly since then. If
they quit making it, we lose. In a sense we already have because
they aren't trying to improve it. If I have to use pushed 100F,
I'll enjoy the sharpness and fine grain, but I'll hate the color
problems. And I guess I just won't shoot under fluorescent light
any longer.  :-(

When will 400F be available? Cheaper mailers sound great!