OT: RIP Kodachrome

[Smiley]

wow, Boy have things changed, stopped buying CD's and now only down load to my I Pod and now what a blow to all 35 mm photographers (are there any left out there). No more Kodachrome

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-kodak-film23-2009jun23,0,247186.story

[39cross]

Photographic image media (tintype, colllodion, daguerreotypes, etc.) have a history of being supplanted by superior processes, but it was a good run for Kodachrome while it lasted.

$ quote: "Kodak lost 4 cents to $2.81 at 9:55 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares slumped 57 percent this year before today."

[deechee]

not really sure, but isn't this just one particular film they're getting rid of? And its one only a handful of photographers use? I never used it myself. Was more of a Fuji NPH/NPZ guy when I was shooting film, and those are still available.

I think the demise of film was forseen, Kodak dropped out of the film camera business a few years back if I remember correctly. Ever since I got my digital SLR, I think I've shot a handful of rolls of film. I don't miss it.

Are medium and large format still predominantly film? I've seen some crazy specs on dpreview but the cost seems excessive. I'm sure film will still live on, but probably only in the professional market...

[monkeywobble]

If you really love the look (both in colorspace and grain) of various speeds of Kodachrome and already have the ability to shoot raw images with a digicam then you might check out the DXO Optics FilmPack plugin for DXO Optics Pro.
In short they analyzed the film, and came up with an approximation of the color and grain which you can apply in post.

I'm not affiliated with the company but am a happy customer of the DXO Optics Pro product for going on 4 years now.

If you just want to grumble about how things are advancing and old technology is becoming to obsolete then please ignore the above ;)


deechee: Medium format film seems to be fairly common with a small niche carved out by the plastic fantastic cameras ( Holga, Diana etc...), digital backs are becoming pretty common.

I haven't seen a large format digital camera and don't really know too much about what to even look for there. If resolution is all that's desired then stitching together many smaller frames will get you there ( www.gigapan.com ).



-s

[Bob Ross]

note to self: ebay that Nikkormat in your closet before it is completely worthless.

[torquer]

note to self: ebay that Nikkormat in your closet before it is completely worthless.
My Nikkormat got dusted off when my son needed a 35mm camera for his high school photography class. They even taught him film developing and printing. Local photo store actually had b&w film in stock!
Of course, this same school provides everyone with a Mac and Garage Band software in their music lab...

[Smiley]

note to self: ebay that Nikkormat in your closet before it is completely worthless.
dumped my stuff 2 years ago for pennies on the dollar, a real shame as I loved that old stuff but never used it anymore in favor of digital camera.

[Marcusaurelius]

Hopefully fuji will not do likewise because I am very reluctant to get rid of my 35mm film camera.

[deechee]

deechee: Medium format film seems to be fairly common with a small niche carved out by the plastic fantastic cameras ( Holga, Diana etc...), digital backs are becoming pretty common.

I haven't seen a large format digital camera and don't really know too much about what to even look for there. If resolution is all that's desired then stitching together many smaller frames will get you there ( www.gigapan.com ).
-s

I remember being a kid and having the class photo taken by a guy with a med or large format camera. I guess I just need to face reality that for pros, a 25k$ digital back makes sense. I dunno if its just resolution too, guys who take those photos for billboards, life size posters etc. They must use some larger sensors. Its funny - last night I had a bizzare dream involving running around with a Polaroid camera (never had one).

I remember when the Elan7 was a 700$ camera. Now its barely 150$ on keh in LN condition. Geez. There's even an "ugly" EOS 1n for the same price. I think that consumer Nikkormat is worth more to keep than to sell... unless its a rangefinder... lots of collectors out there...

[bzbvh5]

How many of you are humming that tune right about now?

[DfCas]

I always thought transparancies, and Kodachrome in particular, had a beauty that was never matched by prints.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . renowned for it's color rendition, but also noted for the complexity of the developing process. For many years in my early career there were VERY few places besides Kodak that could process it. There were an ungodly number of precessing steps and QC had to be manic on the processing temps if it were all to work. Kodak introduced Ektachrome film specifically to address these problems. Once Ektachrome came out you could develop your slides in-house and the papers I was at used Wing-Lynch processors. Kodachrome was noted for its "warm" more yellowish red color cast, and was generally considered the superior slide film. Ekachrome was notably bluer in cast but the processing convenience and higher available ASA's (now called ISO) up to 400 made it preferred for any deadline application. The standard speed for Kodachrome was originally ASA25, but then a 64 speed because available.

But slides were overall a specialty film as soon as good color print film came out. The slide films had incredibly poor exposure latitude. You could get away with exposing Ektachrome 1 stop under, and I often shot it 1/3 stop underexposed just to get more saturated colors. But overexpose it and you were screwed. With negative film you could still get a decent print more than a full stop over or under. For news photographers like me it was a Godsend. The slide films were also not really temperature stable. Storage life was not long unless you had a fridge or freezer to stash it in.

But if I was shooting anything at all colorful for myself--fall foliage, balloon races, costumes--you simply could NOT beat Kodachrome. It had THE best color.

BBD

[avalonracing]

note to self: ebay that Nikkormat in your closet before it is completely worthless.


Too late. I was a pro shooter who sold the last of my Nikon, Hasselblad and Sinar equipment about five years ago. The depreciation was brutal.

As someone who shot commercially for a long time I will say that digital is amazing. Would I like to go back 15 years to the days when it took a lot of knowledge and skill to make great images? Sure. But I would also like to go back 15 years to when every teenager wasn't texting while driving and every TV show wasn't a "reality" show.

[tylercheung]

i live in great fear they will cut tri-x next....

[William]

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match
My sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white

Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
(Leave your boy so far from home)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)

[Joel]

The wait for the little yellow box to come back from the processor...the thrill of opening the slides...kodachrome...color saturation larger than life...timeless beauty when exposed correctly...a part of my youth passes...friction shifters...still around...but kodachrome gone...R.I.P.

[Kevan]

and ain't never lookin' back!

[HenryA]

Kodachrome wasn't that great. Except when you exposed it just right. Then it was absolutely sublime.

I am still loving film here but doing commercial work nearly 100% digitally since 1989. That's a long time since digital was a novelty. Now digital is the standard.

We do have some great color negative films available now so don't give up on your film cameras. They're not dead yet. Do your part to keep it going, shoot film today!

And I sure hope B&W survives forever -- or at least until I die.

[MarleyMon]

In SW Utah, not far from Bryce Canyon Nat'l Park is Kodachrome Basin State Park,
named, w/ the Kodak Company's permission, after a Nat'l Geographic photo expedition in the 40s.
Spectacular scenery (http://beemerchef.smugmug.com/gallery/5350491_xdRh4#329553642_heZfV) shows every color in the spectrum.
Its a really beautiful place.

[cleavel]

Hi,

Not much to add, except that I loved Kodachrome. I did shoot a fair amount of Ektachrome (for higher ASA needs) before I went to digital but I always liked Kodachrome at ASA 64.

Of course I just bought a book on how to do B&W processing in digital -- more than just clicking the convert to B&W button. ;)

[jemoryl]

I looks like Kodak will still be producing the Elite series of transparency film. Is it safe to assume that this is the sucessor to Ektachrome (both use the C-6 chemistry)?

[Fred D]

There was no better way to learn about film exposure than to shoot slide film. If you were off there was no way to correct after the processing. If you didn't get it in the exposure then you didn't get it. It made you stop and think about what you were doing before you pressed the shutter. Bracketing would sometimes help but you couldn't do that all the time. Kodachrome was a different beast than Ektachrome. I shot Ektachrome mostly because I could process it myself. I shoot all digital now but I am glad for the education I got using film. I haven't seen a digital projector that can match the quality and look of a projected color slide. Processing using software rather than darkroom is a whole lot different. Before my class was canceled, by the powers that be, I taught a Photography class where we started out using digital cameras to teach the principles of lighting, exposure, and composition. Then we switched to black and white film for the rest of the class. I figured I would have to pry the digital cameras from the students hands but to my surprise they loved the film part of the class. And we were using manual film cameras. They loved working in the darkroom and producing there own prints. The said they felt like they were more connected to the film prints they made than the digital ones.

[trophyoftexas]

Quote from BBD...."But if I was shooting anything at all colorful for myself--fall foliage, balloon races, costumes--you simply could NOT beat Kodachrome. It had THE best color."....and a quote from Fred D...."There was no better way to learn about film exposure than to shoot slide film. If you were off there was no way to correct after the processing. If you didn't get it in the exposure then you didn't get it. It made you stop and think about what you were doing before you pressed the shutter."

These two quotes pretty well sum it all up for me! I think having shot sooooo much Kodachrome 25 and 64 is at least partly responsible for my being able to switch from film to digital as easily as I have.....blow out the highlights in digital or on slide film and it's all over, nothing there to recover.

I've owned a studio for over 30 years and had a camera shop for most of the first 20 years....we offered Kodak processing at a time when all of the quickie places started to offer "no fault" photo processing and it MADE ME SICK to listen to people that had their film processed at one of these places because they didn't have to pay for THEIR OWN MISTAKES!!!!....crap, how in the hell did they expect to learn anything! I told them even some of the "good exposures" weren't their doing, some guy in the lab had to "work" at making their under or overexposed crap print worth a damn! I told them if they really wanted to see what the hell they were putting on the film to shoot some chrome and get ready to face the music.......and learn!

[victoryfactory]

Kodachrome was king
early Ektachrome sucked
but the E-6 developing Process was easy to do in most any lab
The K-14 Kodachrome developing process was very hard to do
so there were very few labs and you had to send it in and wait.
Even in the 1980's there were only a handful in the USA who would do K-14.
And forget about overseas. So working pros switched to the E-6 for slides

When Fuji came out with really good E-6 slide films that almost matched the
look of Kodachrome, it was over. That happened over 20 years ago. Just like
a US carmaker, Kodak waited too long to change, and they (and their
shareholders) are paying the price

VF

[Fred D]

Yes Fuji Velvia is really nice. The problem with the slow films was exposure latitude. They work great in low contrast situations, the richness and color saturation is so nice. Kind of link printing on Cibachrome. The trick was to work with the film long enough so you got a feeling how it would respond and then you knew when to use it. Some people would use just one type of film and got really good with it. But if you had to work in lots of different lighting and environments it was best to have a more than one film type to choose from. Ansel Adams was know to use Tri-X for some of his work, but he was working with 4x5 and 8x10 formats.

[dannyg1]

Kodachrome will always be the only generally available and ready color photographic film medium that can be considered 'archival'. It's great strength (Yes Dorothy, the Wizard of Oz really did look just like that in the 1930's theater).

Once Ilfochrome is no more, dye transfer will be the last archival color, photographic, process left.

Scratch that. Kodak discontinued dye transfer matrice films in '04.

Leaves us with Dye sub and inkjet?

[victoryfactory]

I've heard the archival argument forever (get it? forever.... ha ha)

In the new digital photo world you can store your color corrected, optimized,
AnselAdam-ized works of art digitally and so what if the print goes bad in 99 years?
Just load it up in photoshop CS99+ and make another print. You, of course, will
be 150 years old by then so get some help from a kid.

The archival life of a print was important back when each print was the end
result of individual dodging, burning and manipulating and was a work of art in
itself. And modern ink jet prints last a long time and are getting even better.

Today, you can save all those moves with the digital file and reproduce them
with ease.

VF

[dannyg1]

Maybe. Consider though that current digi-sensors are still typically 8 bit devices and can't capture even a good portion of the information that film can. The gamut is very compressed.

What truly archivally obsessed fan of color photography would want to resign himself to that?

Like telling an audiophile that 64k mp3's sound fine and last forever.

I've heard the archival argument forever (get it? forever.... ha ha)

In the new digital photo world you can store your color corrected, optimized,
AnselAdam-ized works of art digitally and so what if the print goes bad in 99 years?
Just load it up in photoshop CS99+ and make another print. You, of course, will
be 150 years old by then so get some help from a kid.

The archival life of a print was important back when each print was the end
result of individual dodging, burning and manipulating and was a work of art in
itself. And modern ink jet prints last a long time and are getting even better.

Today, you can save all those moves with the digital file and reproduce them
with ease.

VF

[cadence90]

I always thought transparancies, and Kodachrome in particular, had a beauty that was never matched by prints.
In that case, check out Paul Outerbridge and carbro prints, for instance.

Or Harry Callahan, Stephen Shore, Joel Meyerowitz, John Divola, William Egglestone, Joel Sternfeld, Frank Gohlke, Joe Deal, Kenda North, William Christenberry, Uta Barth, Richard Misrach, etc.

You'll see some pretty fine prints there....

[overthehil]

I loved Kodachrome back in the 1970's when I first became interested in more "serious" photography. Unfortunately, I almost always ended up using E6 films, just because I was too impatient to mail and wait, while I could process E6 myself. But I recognized then, and still do even more now, that Kodachrome had a somewhat hard to describe but unique look.

Velvia? Don't make me laugh. Looks like cartoon pictures.

At the risk of being the most hated man since Adolf Hitler, I will say that Kodachrome is to photography what high-quality steel frames are to road racing bikes. Digital photography is like carbon-fibre... no soul.

Anyway, I can thumb my nose at the bicycle industry and still ride my custom-made lugged steel quite happily without ever feeling I'm missing out on anything. but once something like Kodachrome is gone, it's gone. Sad, really.

[Jeff N.]

I don't think film cameras will completely disappear for a little while. I mean, not unless they can invent a throw-away digital camera. Jeff N.

[victoryfactory]

Maybe. Consider though that current digi-sensors are still typically 8 bit devices and can't capture even a good portion of the information that film can. The gamut is very compressed.

What truly archivally obsessed fan of color photography would want to resign himself to that?

Like telling an audiophile that 64k mp3's sound fine and last forever.

True. Anyone who has been to Tom Till's gallery in Moab has seen what
large format transparency film and Ilfochrome can do.
His prints are breathtaking.

I hope that digital continues to get better. I have seen some stuff shot with
digital and printed on large inkjets that is pretty impressive. I am hopeful.

vf

Kodachrome Basin State Park in 2008:

[monkeywobble]

Maybe. Consider though that current digi-sensors are still typically 8 bit devices and can't capture even a good portion of the information that film can. The gamut is very compressed.

What truly archivally obsessed fan of color photography would want to resign himself to that?

Like telling an audiophile that 64k mp3's sound fine and last forever.

I think this is a bit unfair. The truly obsessed fan of color photography (assuming digicam) wouldn't be going out with a cell phone trying to capture natures beauty. If they were truly obsessive about documenting the true colors they'd load up on the latest camera with a Foveon sensor before heading out. If they were after resolution and had a budget they'd probably pick up a Canon 5D MkII or Nikon D700. For those with unlimited funds you might find them out and about with a digital Hasselblad.

It's more like telling an audiophile he can have his fidelity but he'll have to pay for it. But then that's expected, no?

[Ozz]

What do you photo guys think of the Red / Scarlet cameras?

http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/

Combination video / still cameras? It looks like pretty cool technology....still trying to get my head around it. Curious as to what those that know think...

:beer:

[victoryfactory]

I don't have any experience with that company's product,
but at the risk of insulting a possibly brilliant piece of gear.
I don't generally trust any gizmo that claims to do two things well.
Think: "hybrid bike"

VF

[Fred D]

I think most photojournalist are seeing the writing on the wall and they are going to be expected to do video when these cameras become more accepted. From what I've read their still resolution rivals most still DSLRs. Plus their configuration possibilities are pretty envious. But the catch, just like the Fovian chip, is that they have to become accepted by the DSLR crowd. The Fovian chips problem is that only one camera company, as far as I know, Sigma, has come on board. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc. have too much tied up in their own technology to jump ship. I was really excited when the Fovian chip first came out, but economics being what they are, they are going to stick with what got them the business.

[monkeywobble]

What do you photo guys think of the Red / Scarlet cameras?

http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/

Combination video / still cameras? It looks like pretty cool technology....still trying to get my head around it. Curious as to what those that know think...

:beer:

The Red brand of cameras are interesting. They seem like cool toys and I particularly like that they can mount either Canon or Nikon lenses. The ability to buy incremental upgrades is an interesting idea. Glancing over their price sheets it seems like it is an interesting idea but the value really isn't there, new sensor modules cost about what an equivalent camera would be from competitors. On the high end they seem to be going after what is at best a niche market. I can't imagine they'll be wildly successful but it's exciting to see some manufacturer pushing new design ideas.

As far as the new generation of cameras that can swing both ways (still/motion) we're probably a few generations away from a camera that really gets it right. Some beautiful work has been produced with the 5D MkII ( Vincent Laforet I'm looking at you here ) but the current offerings lack features common to most basic camcorders ( continuous autofocus to name a big one ) so it's unlikely to displace dedicated units ( I have both myself ). There is also the pretty big downside of CMOS sensors shooting video have a rolling shutter which creates the jelly like effects you can see when panning. I expect companies like Redrock who for a fat wad of cash will sell you a system which will allow you to mount SLR lenses on Prosumer level videocams are reinventing themselves or have already done so. I'd also expect that those peeps who believe themselves to be indy film makers are peeing themselves in excitement over the current and future potential in this new line of gear.

-s

[rePhil]

My specialty was existing light photgraphy of boats. I cut my professional teeth on Kodachrome back in '82. Hated the turn around. Tried Ektachrome and while I liked the E-6 turnaround time, I didn't like the results.
One day A Fuji rep called and sent me some Velvia samples. That was all it took. Later on I switched to Provia. To me there was no comparison. I never cared about the complexities or technical aspects of the film. I just wanted to take cool photos and I liked the results of Fuji.
Although I feel sorry for Kodak, I put 3 kids through college shooting thousands of rolls of Fuji.

As a sidebar I clearly remember a conversation in a helicopter with an art director who said " one day I will be sitting next to you with a laptop and tell you when we got the shot instead of you shooting and me looking at 20 rolls per boat"

[victoryfactory]

My specialty was existing light photgraphy of boats. I cut my professional teeth on Kodachrome back in '82. Hated the turn around. Tried Ektachrome and while I liked the E-6 turnaround time, I didn't like the results.
One day A Fuji rep called and sent me some Velvia samples. That was all it took. Later on I switched to Provia. To me there was no comparison. I never cared about the complexities or technical aspects of the film. I just wanted to take cool photos and I liked the results of Fuji.


Yep I took the same path:
Kodachrome
Ektachrome (yuk)
Velvia (too fruity and over ripe color)
Provia (the best slide film for my tastes)
Digital

I can remember going overseas to shoot for a month with a bag of film the
size of a 4 slice toaster. Trying to talk the local airport "security" out of
sending it through the radar 50 times. Emptying out the mini fridge in every
hotel room to keep it cool and then repeating the the whole procedure on
the way home. Yikes!
Now, you can keep your whole deal in a shirt pocket with room to spare!

VF

[cadence90]

It is too bad.

Among transparency film:
Exta was too blue.
Agfa was too brown.
Fuji Velvia was too fake.
Fuji Velvia was OK.
But Kodachrome was by far the best.

Still, digital, for so-called "art" (is there any other, really?) photography (I completely understand photojournalists and commercial photographers have expediency to deal with, so digital is where it's at there) doesn't cut, it yet: the best is still to shoot on film, scan, correct and print digitally.
But you need a helluva scanner and a helluva printer.
(If you happen to know a certain someone at the local college photo dep't. it helps a lot. ;) )