WWII Kodachrome--Simply the Best!

[stonemint]

Bob L tipped me off to this link with multiple pics taken during WW2. IMO, there simply was no better color film ever--even in this digital age (yes, better than Agfa during the same period).

Many of these pics look like they were taken yesterday, they are so sharp and brilliant:

[stonemint]

Link is here:


http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

[stonemint]

This guy said it best:



If you have good light and you’re at a fairly high shutter speed, it’s going to be a brilliant color photograph. It had a great color palette. It wasn’t too garish. Some films are like you’re on a drug or something. Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric. Kodachrome had more poetry in it, a softness, an elegance. With digital photography, you gain many benefits [but] you have to put in post-production. [With Kodachrome,] you take it out of the box and the pictures are already brilliant.<SUP id=cite_ref-Vanity_Fair.2FMcCurry_20-1 class=reference>[21]</SUP>

[stonemint]

Razor-sharp, no grainyness:

[stonemint]

Makes even a bunch of (literally) dirt-poor Okies look strangely noble:

[rebeldevil89]

The one that blew me away was the tank going through the mud. I knew the second I saw it, it was Ft. Knox. It really looked like it was taken yesterday, as all of the photos look like that.

Thanks for sharing.

[seekwhence]

I have to disagree with you in your assertion that WW2 era Kodachrome was the best color film ever. I personally have many period Kodachrome slides that look like crap and conversely I have many Agfacolor images from the same period that are as good as those you referenced. It all comes down to the camera used, the skill of the photographer, the batch quality of the film employed and the expertise of those doing the development.
In terms of which film was more technically advanced and easier to develop there is no comparison - Agfacolor wins hands down. From the beginning, the scientists at Agfa were able to figure out how to integrate the color formers within Agfacolor's film emulsion layers, which were then all developed together; whereas Kodachrome required 3 different color development steps. Also, this K-14 development process does not lend itself well to scanning unlike the traditional E-6 slides. Typically the scanner software has to have a special Kodachrome setting. If you scan one without this functionality using the standard E-6 setting, it will not look good with color dropouts or a bluish overall cast.
In terms of image quality, I believe Kodachrome and Agfacolor were on par with each other – given that all other variables were equal.

seekwhence

[JeremyJ]

..

Nice images!

[stonemint]

I have to disagree with you in your assertion that WW2 era Kodachrome was the best color film ever. I personally have many period Kodachrome slides that look like crap and conversely I have many Agfacolor images from the same period that are as good as those you referenced. It all comes down to the camera used, the skill of the photographer, the batch quality of the film employed and the expertise of those doing the development.
In terms of which film was more technically advanced and easier to develop there is no comparison - Agfacolor wins hands down. From the beginning, the scientists at Agfa were able to figure out how to integrate the color formers within Agfacolor's film emulsion layers, which were then all developed together; whereas Kodachrome required 3 different color development steps. Also, this K-14 development process does not lend itself well to scanning unlike the traditional E-6 slides. Typically the scanner software has to have a special Kodachrome setting. If you scan one without this functionality using the standard E-6 setting, it will not look good with color dropouts or a bluish overall cast.
In terms of image quality, I believe Kodachrome and Agfacolor were on par with each other – given that all other variables were equal.

seekwhence

I am not a color film expert, nor even a photographer, and as I stated, just IMO. However, I have looked at a lot of WW2 era color pics over the years, and I have yet to see any Agfacolor pics that are as sharp and vibrant as this (the ones Walter Frentz took come close, but still a distant second to Kodachrome).

[i.spring]

Hugo Jaeger took many fine examles using agfacolor.
Dave is correct, german agfacolor was fantastic for quality and its technology.
Ian

examle
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28088814@N02/3123769074/

[stonemint]

Jaeger used Kodachrome:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...photo/50715683

[seekwhence]

Jaeger used Kodachrome:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...photo/50715683

On some occasions all of the famous German photographers (Jäger, Frentz, Hoffmann, etc) used Kodachrome at one time or another. But for the most part – especially during the war - they almost exclusively employed Agfacolor. Also, the quality of the Jäger Kodachrome image example you referenced does not give credence to your first assertion that (in your opinion), that type of film was the best. The color rendition is not very good for the interior, low light scene depicted.

seekwhence

[stonemint]

These were sent to me by Bob L--some of the first in-theater pics taken by Life magazine's Margaret Bourke-White:

[stonemint]

Nose art in progress:

[stonemint]

"Berlin Sleeper"