Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome?

I remember Kodachrome II and its predecessor which was Kodachrome ASA
10. I don't remember it when it was 8.

 

Thanks for the flickr link. Those images are priceless.

 

When Kodak dropped Panatomix-X in 120, Ilford started making Pan-F in 120.
I've been using Pan-F in both 35 and 120 formats ever since and stopped
using Kodak. In my not so humble opinion, I thing Pan-F is superior,
especially when developed in Perceptol.

Gene Pallat

Orion Data Systems
Orion Forensics

 

The local Natural history museum uses photographic prints to show volcanoes
and earthquakes to the public. One of the 30x40 prints was from Kodachrome.
You can see the difference even from 30 feet away.

Gene Pallat

Orion Data Systems
Orion Forensics

 

According to the history I found, it was originally introduced as ASA 8.
I think it might have gotten a boost to ASA 10 and even ASA 12. I
believe the original Kodachrome was a K-11 process, Kodachrome II was
K-12 and the current Kodachrome is K-14.

As far as personal memory, I barely remember Kodachrome II from the
advertising when I was a child. Kodak had already introduced the current
version of Kodachrome before I got really serious about photography the
first time, and at that I was shooting Tri-X, since the darkroom I had
access to didn't have facilities for color.

 

I know it was at one time ASA 10 because that's what it was in 1956
when I first used it. Something in my memory tells me the movie version
may have been ASA 12 but I'm not certain. I iknow the 35mm version
never went to 12. It went directly from Kodachrome (ASA 10) to
Kodachrome II (ASA 25).

 

No, it's not. But given that Kodachrome is essentially
gone and Kodak doesn't give a shit about film, you're
much better off sticking with a company that continues to
support, develop and improve film: Fuji.

 

Or even better IMHO is to set up a small darkroom by getting your equipment
from people giving it away or charging very little, learn to master
black and white photography and stick with Ilford. Fuji also has good
black and white materials, it's just that Ilford is specializing on it.

You can develop Fuji black and white film with Ilford chemicals and
print it on Ilford paper, so you do have a choice.

You could also go part way, you can develop film on your kitchen table
in full light. If you can darken a room, you can make contact prints
with a frame and three trays. Once you see the pictures you like on
the contact prints, you can send them out for printing with exposure and
cropping instructions.

You could also at that point scan the negatives and make digital prints
from them. Black and white digital prints are more difficult, because
your brain automaticaly color corrects what you see, color hides a lot
of printing problems.

Geoff.

 

No one seems to know for sure. Check Appendix A of
http://www.arp-geh.org/FileUpload_demo/KodaEktaSmall_Aug9_2005.pdf

ASA ratings are given for all emulsion variants EXCEPT the very first
35mm version. Part of the confusion may be because the ASA scale
wasn't that commonly used until after World War II.

Almost right, but contrary to popular belief, the original Kodachrome
was not K-11. K-11 was introduced in the 1950s.