Talk:Kodachrome

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kodachrome, film in general, or film vs. digital debate. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kodachrome, film in general, or film vs. digital debate at the Reference desk.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 22, 2013.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Photography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives: 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

AGFA somebody?

It may be not seem that way in the US, but Agfa was the sole competitor on the consumer market that both wanted to establish for colour film. It is not a coincidence that Agfacolor(-Neu) came out, too, in 1936 (w ad campaign at the 1936 Olympics). Unfortunately, in the article Agfa is mentioned just once among others. It is ahistorical in that way. (Whereas parts of the text are redundant.) MenkinAlRire 16:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Agfacolor, Kodachrome was a finished product upon release in 1936. --2003:DA:CF2E:4505:A1D4:B7C1:CDC0:D655 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skin tone

I'd like to see this article cover the fact that Kodak's photographic standards, for many years – including the time period when Kodachrome would have been most used, and especially since it is considered the "gold standard" for skin tones – were, as per the Shirley card, only judged against white skin tones. I've found an NPR article that would be relevant for the standards Kodachrome was judged against, and a a Priceonomics article on the subject as well, which explicitly mentions Kodachrome – New Wave filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, when filming in Mozambique, refused to use Kodachrome, as he considered it racist due to its inadequacy of application to anyone not white. (Even more egregious is the fact that they only started reconsidering how the film handled darker colours and skin tones when chocolate manufacturers and furniture companies complained.)

This article mentions skin tone presently in the 'History' section: "The plates were then assembled emulsion to emulsion, producing transparency that was capable of surprisingly good (for a two-colour process) colour rendition of skin tones in portraits." It seems like a very missed opportunity to point out that Kodachrome was only "surprisingly good" if you happened to be white. —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that Godard complained about this problem with Kodak film in 1978, not only is it highly unlikely that he was referring to the amateur reversal stock Kodachrome, moreover, it was a problem with virtuall *ALL* known color stocks in the world up until the mid-90s. Even the source[1] used in Godard's own article for this anecdote doesn't claim he was referring to Kodachrome, only to "Kodak stock". --2003:DA:CF2E:4566:58A9:257D:A595:4F86 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]