Film Friday: Inkjet Prints of Kodachrome at the Nathan Benn Show

The Nathan Benn show at our local Rockwell Museum in Corning, New York, was a treat. I had only one complaint: there wasn't enough of it. It was well lit and impeccably presented in the classic manner, with a well-designed and well-sequenced array of prints of mostly medium size, but it consisted of only a single, medium-sized room. There were 19 prints in total.

I would have been up for three times as many. But then, this work is right down my alley—I tend to love artistically-done pictures of real life with a photojournalistic, truth-telling slant. Nathan Benn is a little freer than the typical National Geographic photographer, somewhat similar in that regard to his colleague and good friend William Albert Allard, who also shoots a bit loose. Benn is a native of Miami so his portrait of Florida is "home ground" work for him.

The selection of images was good if necessarily a bit uneven. It is, after all, a sampling of a larger body of work—even the more than 100 pictures in the book are only a sampling. This environmental portrait was Geoff's favorite. Geoff's a landscape guy, pretty intensely, but...Benn's work convinces. By the way, don't be tempted to judge this picture by this little phone snap of the print, rendered as a small JPEG; you're not seeing the real thing. Looking at this print as a secondhand JPEG is like listening to a Stradivarius through desktop computer speakers.

In fact I was surprised how much better I could see this picture and several others on the wall than I could in the book. I still like the book, but so much is run too big and across the gutters that you can't really get a sense of each picture as an integrated whole. In any book, you're trying to look past the book to see the picture. Busy, in-your-face design keeps dragging your attention relentlessly back to the book-ness of the book, if you will. You get too much sense of page surfaces, page bends, disparate pictorial elements shoved at your nose willy-nilly (what, do they think I'm looking at the book from three feet away?), and the unnatural gutter breaks are about as graceful as jazz interrupted by commercials. By contrast, it's a luxury to see beautifully framed prints on the wall. And a privilege. It's a more relaxed, intimate, respectful way to see photographs. I was struck by the portrait of Tennessee Williams—it was like I had never seen it before, even though it's in the book and you can see it in various places online. Don't bother. It's a great picture as a larger-than-16x20 framed print, but forgettable if you only see it as a little online thumbnail with inaccurate color.

I think I've officially decided that inkjet prints of Kodachrome originals are among my favorite photographic media. They can be lovely. It's like the two techniques from different eras were somehow made for each other. They go together; each fulfills the other. Now I want to see inkjets of Fred Herzog Kodachromes, and inkjet prints of Steve McCurry Kodachromes, and inkjets of Saul Leiter Kodachromes, and inkjets of Ernst Haas Kodachromes, and...and....

Nathan Benn preferred Kodachrome II, but later photographed with Kodachrome 25 and 200. He didn't care for Kodachrome 64. Wikipedia parses the dates:

"In 1961 Kodak released Kodachrome II with sharper images and faster speeds at 25 ASA. In 1962, Kodachrome-X at ASA 64 was introduced. In 1974, with the transition to the K-14 process[,] Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X were replaced by Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64." (Nathan would have been 24 in 1974.)

It's curious too to reflect that Kodachrome was once considered to be at the bold-and-bright end of color films—now it has shifted to the middle of the range. It almost looks subtle now, in fact, so much has current taste been influenced by the heightened colors of digital. (Although the process of pushing Kodachrome color back from the edge was in full swing already with Fujichrome Velvia, the color transparency film of the 1990s.) To me it's almost like Kodachrome is half color and half black-and-white—you still get a strong sense of the structure of values (light to dark), in addition to colors that have richness as well as a certain specificity. It's a distinctive, long-lived, much-loved look.

It begs the question: can you really photograph in color with film today, now that there's no more Kodachrome?

I guess you can—well, of course you can—but it's definitely a wall with a brick missing, a roof with a hole in it. As a candidate for your film photography library I'll suggest Kodachrome Memory: American Pictures 1972–1990 by Nathan Benn. And if you get a chance to see inkjet prints of Nathan Benn Kodachromes, by all means make the effort if you're able.

Mike
(Thanks to Nancy at the Rockwell Museum, Corning)

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Rod S.: "For a long time, I've felt that framed prints on the wall release or free images from the constraints of gutter, edges and size that we accept or tolerate in books. Framed prints on the wall allow the images to breathe unimpeded. And I've never read anyone else describe this feeling, until just now."

Ed Hawco: "Sounds like a very nice show to take in. I have seen inkjets of Fred Herzog Kodachromes in Ottawa, Ontario, at the National Gallery. I also saw inkjets of Saul Leiter Kodachromes in Santa Monica in 2014 or so. Stunning in both cases. (The Herzogs were in the 16x20 range I think, and the Leiters were much smaller, like maybe 11x14 or possibly smaller.)"

Henning: "Fred Herzog prints from Kodachrome are available through Equinox Gallery in Vancouver. He's had shows in many cities in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. Fred was a good long time friend with whom I went on many photo walks and had many discussions. He sometimes invited other friends and myself over to his place for slide shows in the '70's to the '90s. Always a great experience; and until high quality scanning and inkjet printing became available, we never expected to see his pictures other than in a darkened room. Prints are different; projection of Kodachromes certainly had a special magic."

Stan B.: "Pure nostalgia.... Hand-holdable, museum matted prints in silver aluminum, Nielsen-era frames! Guess it's more than a little dated to some—forever timeless to me! And it does make the 'color shift' from K-II to digital (via Velvia) rather apparent even to a color newcomer like me."

Mel: "Interesting comment about Kodachrome being like half B&W and half color. The film stock is B&W. The color is added during the processing. Since B&W film can be thinner (don't need multiple layers of color) the images can be sharper with better contrast. Good comment, Mike."

Stan B.: "Color, like accents—same language...different variations."

Comments

[Keith B]

Funny...I just inkjet printed a DSLR scan of a Kodachrome 25 slide I shot in about 1980. The contrast is, of course, insanely high. But...the rendering of the color hues is where the magic was.
When I first got digital cameras and an inkjet printer, my goal was to copy that unique rendering of hues from Kodachrome 25. There are too many possible adjustments provided by the raw converters to resist the temptation to "adjust" the color beyond what Kodachrome might have produced, but it's still a worthy goal to try to 'get that Kodachrome color'.

[Arch Noble]

OK, the prints were "larger than 16 x 20." So what size were they?

[Several sizes, from one (maybe two?) very large ones (maybe 3-4 feet) to a standard size of maybe 18-24 inches, with some smaller than that, maybe 12-15". I didn't measure. The one of TW struck me as a little larger than 16x20 but I wouldn't bet money on it. --Mike]

[Lothar Adler]

Was there any indication in the exhibition as to how the Kodachromes were digitized (hardware, adjustment of tonal values)? Because this film also differs from other slide films in this respect.
A little hint: I get the best results when I apply a bit of HDR to these digitizations - not for the HDR look, but to tame the high density range of the slide.

[There were no technical details that I saw. --Mike]

[Herman Krieger]

Kodak used to display back-lit color photos at the New York Central Station. They were 18 ft. x 60 ft. in size .

[Stan B.]

Pure nostalgia... Hand holdable, museum matted prints in silver aluminum, Nielsen era frames! Guess it's more than a little dated to some- forever timeless to me! And it does make the 'color shift' from K-II to digital (via Velvia) rather apparent even to a color newcomer such as myself.

[Kye Wood]

Great prints! Great post too.

It just struck me that photography is now accessible. Making prints, getting film developed and owning a decent camera, all those things were luxury items as I grew up. And they still are.

But Photography is no longer the purview of the well heeled. I think that's a good thing.

[Michael Boyle]

I think some of Fred's were 17x22. They looked really good even from one of his favorite cameras, a Nikon point-and-shoot zoom 35 gold colour $5 garage sale unit that he was very happy with, "It's very sharp." --MB, Vancouver

[DavidB]

"...I think I've officially decided that inkjet prints of Kodachrome originals are among my favorite photographic media...

I've done a lot of inkjet prints of Kodachrome. But the intermediate step between the photograph and the print is the digital scan. And scanning Kodachrome is hard.

[John Krill]

In 2010 I shot 8 rolls of Kodachrome as a goodbye to this classic color film. I still haven’t got around to making digital copies.

Time is running out.

[Stan B.]

I'm relatively new to color (only eight years in-FWIW, with seemingly poor inherent color sensitivity) but I do notice the cooler colors of say Leica "color science" (which I prefer) to Fuji's...

That said, as I juggle Fuji, Ricoh, Leica colors simultaneously- it can all become one anonymous, confusing blur of... colors! My hat's off to those who can instinctually (or at least seemingly so) discern the difference- seriously. I'm still learning it; (severely) doubt I'll ever master it- but having fun playing with it best I can...

[Luke]

Your observation about Kodachrome is very interesting:
"To me it's almost like Kodachrome is half color and half black-and-white—you still get a strong sense of the structure of values (light to dark), in addition to colors that have richness as well as a certain specificity."
Well put; that had not occurred to me.

You also said "It's a distinctive, long-lived, much-loved look."
Well, um, nostalgic, if you're old enough, for sure.

I have been photographing semi-seriously since about 1960, and have racks of thousands of slides. I have seen millions of photographs over those years, chromes, magazine reproductions, art prints, and everything else. But I honestly don't believe I have ever been tempted to try to copy the look of a particular film, consciously or subconsciously. Yes, some subjects look better with jacked-up color and contrast, but every photo is different!

Some talented photographers of the past have been able to take advantage of color and contrast distortions of film by shooting carefully chosen subjects to form a personal "look". So now a popular trend is to copy particular film distortions, to simulate "old" photos of various film types. But to distort a reasonably accurate photo just to make it conform to pre-set old film color problems is just plain silly. Every photo is different!

The glorious thing about modern digital photography is that each photo can be individually adjusted with "enhanced" (or reduced) contrast, saturation, etc., instead of being stuck with a "film look". Because every photo is different.

(Was this a rant? Yeah, probably. Beside your point? I don't think so.)

[But who said anything about mimicking film looks in digital? Nathan's pictures were Kodachrome slides; he just had them printed, is all. He doesn't have to mimic anything. Or am I off base in reacting to your point? --Mike]

[Kenneth Tanaka]

This looks like a very nice show of Mr. Benn’s excellent color work. Just this summer while re-organizing shelf space I re-engaged with his book “Kodachrome Memory”…and it sucked-up the remainder of my afternoon that day.

Yes, I’d recommend re-framing that work into a more period-neutral motif. But maybe it’s an appropriate exhibition motif after all, given the historic range of the subjects and the extinction of the medium!

[Mani]

“can you really photograph in color with film today, now that there's no more Kodachrome?”

I’m genuinely hoping this isn’t going to be the general tenor of ‘Film Fridays’: you won’t be finding a new audience with this sort of nostalgic attitude.

When you were asking for input in an earlier post, someone recommended Kyle MacDougall’s YouTube channel as inspiration. His videos are both beautifully produced and very informative.
I’d like to add Nick Carver to the list: you can watch almost any of his videos and be inspired, amused, informed and often awed by his talent. I’d suggest starting with a few of the ‘On location’ videos - or even something like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q9i_HEOkxo

“Dissecting a Photo: 1964 Sears Department Store” So dense with useful information for real film photographers, shooting real film now: in this case the most beautiful color film ever made - Kodak Portra.

Color film is alive and well and flourishing.

[Not really fair to judge the whole category by the first post, is it? However, if you don't like the "tenor" of the posts, they'll be labeled, so you can skip them. That's why I label the titles with tags like "(OT)" and do things like put political posts behind breaks--so people can avoid what they don't care to read. --Mike]

[Dave]

Mike,

I think you're "off base" in your reading of Luke's comment.

Luke said, "So now a popular trend is to copy particular film distortions . . ."

I took that to mean using film distortions on digital photos. (Film-like lookup tables [LUTs].)

I don't think he was referring to Nathan's earlier work at all.

[Earl Dunbar]

Well my friend and I here in Rochester (he’s a former Widelux photographer) will certainly make the trip down. Personally I liked Kodachrome 64; I considered it a real improvement over Kodachrome X. Kodachrome II had its charms but overall I preferred K25. K64 gave me that extra bit of speed I needed. The only other transparency film I liked almost as much was the E6 Agfachrome 64. It had a colour balance that felt so natural. The way it rendered blues was just remarkable!

I found Velvia to just be too much … in some scenes/light I would nearly have a (negative) physical reaction. In low(er) contrast situations it could be really remarkable though, but apparently the majority of people shooting it liked the over-saturation and, to me, nearly garish rendering. Or maybe I had a screw loose.

“Back in the day” I used to print Kodachromes on Cibachrome, aka Ilfochrome. It would be pretty special to see the same transparencies printed on both, side by side.

I still have about 10 rolls of Kodachrome in the film fridge. Those rolls were for a final shoot at Lake Superior in and around Pukaskwa National Park. Alas, Dwayne’s closed before I could make that trip. I know, I’ll never be able to have them professionally processed if I were to expose them, but I keep them in unfounded hope and for pure nostalgia.

[Moose]

This may be the place to again recommend the book Ansel Adams in Color.

Adams took his first color photos, Autochromes, in 1921. He did work for Kodak throughout the development of Kodachrome. He said some of the most beautiful things he'd seen were 8x10 Kodachrome transparencies, and lamented the then impossibility of making decent prints of them

Herman Krieger:
Kodak used to display back-lit color photos at the New York Central Station. They were 18 ft. x 60 ft. in size.

They were called Coloramas. Some were shot by Ansel Adams, as part of his long commercial work for Kodak.

Little, Brown did all the best Adams books, and went to great lengths with the scanning and reproduction of these color, mostly Kodachrome, photos.

As late as 1979, he wrote 'Press reproductions have always had a greater potential for "quality" than have color prints.' This book may be the apotheosis of that sentiment. The reproductions are glorious, with never a gutter crossing. (He died much too early for the inkjet prints discussed in this post.)

The final part, Selected Writings on Color Photography by Ansel Adams, is a gold mine of his writings about color, mostly from letters.

[hugh crawford]

Even looking at the JPEG’s of the inkjet prints viewed on an iPhone, they definitely look like Kodachrome. Kind of reminds me of me of early Cibachrome
Back around 1978 or so Kodak shipped a bunch of movie film stock labeled as 320 ASA Ektachrome but it was actually Kodachrome 25. A bunch of my friends were using it and mailing it back to Kodak and it took about a year for it to get returned with an apologetic letter saying that they had Done a special run push processing the 25 ASA Kodachrome to the equivalent of 400 ASA along with profuse apologies and a coupon for free film. The movies looked spectacular and my friends wrote a letter to Kodak asking if they could do that again. Kodak very vigorously refused and apparently, there was some kerfuffle about explaining what had gone wrong.

[Lindsay Bach]

"To me it's almost like Kodachrome is half color and half black-and-white—you still get a strong sense of the structure of values (light to dark), in addition to colors that have richness as well as a certain specificity."

Well, actually, Kodachrome was a blend of color and black and white films. Kodachrome had a silver base (to make the "K" in CMYK) with the dyes added in processing. This is why, if you have any, you can still use it as a black and white film.

[Hugh]

“Mimicking film”…. Yep, exactly what I do for most of my serious stuff.

Exposure Software has very good Tri-X and K64 emulations.
I use N-1, N, and N+1 Tri-X settings, all with 5x4 sized grain.
Matches up with the small amount of Tri-X that I still shoot.

https://exposure.software/

I print everything on a big Epson printer, one paper choice, mostly one size.

You could call it a Zen thing. Reduce the choices, and concentrate on the subject matter.

[Luke]

To answer your question. the first commenter, in particular, said:
"When I first got digital cameras and an inkjet printer, my goal was to copy that unique rendering of hues from Kodachrome 25. There are too many possible adjustments provided by the raw converters to resist the temptation to "adjust" the color beyond what Kodachrome might have produced, but it's still a worthy goal to try to 'get that Kodachrome color'.
It's a big trend. Many cameras even have these presets built in.

[Bob G.]

When I was shooting transparencies, Kodachrome was too harsh for me. My choice was Ektachrome 160T with CCfilters outside. My theory was that I could generally get more exterior light and always have more exposure inside with the filters off when I needed it.

[richard.l]

on the other coast... The Last Dyes ...Eggleston show in LA. William Eggleston: The Last Dyes is on view at David Zwirner Los Angeles from November 16th, 2024 to February 1st, 2025.
a short BTS on production of prints

https://youtu.be/TDEogEt_NeQ?si=nyA1SDkKzQtKmUQm

[John Payne]

Quite unintentionally I discovered that, to me anyway, the combination of vintage lenses with a modern digital sensor produces sort of a Kodachrome-adjacent look. For example, I use a 1946 Summitar 50/2 and a 1953 Summaron 35/3.5 on my Leica M240 and I think the images are quite beautiful. I also use all of my old Nikkor lenses on a digital Df and I get similar results.