Author Topic: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away  (Read 14501 times)

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,445
  • I'm an Extremist!
They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« on: June 22, 2009, 10:41:55 AM »
A little bit of history fades away...


-------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_us/us_kodachrome_s_demise_7

Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak's taking Kodachrome away
By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Carolyn Thompson, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 56 mins ago

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away.

The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its most senior film because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age.

The world's first commercially successful color film, immortalized in song by Simon, spent 74 years in Kodak's portfolio. It enjoyed its heyday in the 1950s and '60s but in recent years has nudged closer to obscurity: Sales of Kodachrome are now just a fraction of 1 percent of the company's total sales of still-picture films, and only one commercial lab in the world still processes it.

Those numbers and the unique materials needed to make it convinced Kodak to call its most recent manufacturing run the last, said Mary Jane Hellyar, the outgoing president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group.

"Kodachrome is particularly difficult (to retire) because it really has become kind of an icon," Hellyar said.

The company now gets about 70 percent of its revenue from its digital business, but plans to stay in the film business "as far into the future as possible," Hellyar said. She points to the seven new professional still films and several new motion picture films introduced in the last few years and to a strategy that emphasizes efficiency.

"Anywhere where we can have common components and common design and common chemistry that let us build multiple films off of those same components, then we're in a much stronger position to be able to continue to meet customers' needs," she said.

Kodachrome, because of a unique formula, didn't fit in with the philosophy and was made only about once a year.

Simon sang about it in 1973 in the aptly titled "Kodachrome."

"They give us those nice bright colors. They give us the greens of summers. Makes you think all the world's a sunny day," he sang. "... So Mama don't take my Kodachrome away."

Indeed, Kodachrome was favored by still and motion picture photographers for its rich but realistic tones, vibrant colors and durability.

It was the basis not only for countless family slideshows on carousel projectors over the years but also for world-renowned images, including Abraham Zapruder's 8 mm reel of President John F. Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963.

Photojournalist Steve McCurry's widely recognized portrait of an Afghan refugee girl, shot on Kodachrome, appeared on the cover of National Geographic in 1985. At Kodak's request, McCurry will shoot one of the last rolls of Kodachrome film and donate the images to the George Eastman House museum, which honors the company's founder, in Rochester.

For McCurry, who after 25 years with Kodachrome moved on to digital photography and other films in the last few years, the project will close out an era.

"I want to take (the last roll) with me and somehow make every frame count ... just as a way to honor the memory and always be able to look back with fond memories at how it capped and ended my shooting Kodachrome," McCurry said last week from Singapore, where he has an exhibition at the Asian Civilizations Museum.

As a tribute to the film, Kodak has compiled on its Web site a gallery of iconic images, including McCurry's Afghan girl and others from photographers Eric Meola and Peter Guttman.

Guttman used Kodachrome for 16 years, until about 1990, before switching to Kodak's more modern Ektachrome film, and he calls it "the visual crib that I was nurtured in." He used it to create a widely published image of a snowman beneath a solar eclipse, shot in the dead of winter in North Dakota.

"I was pretty much entranced by the incredibly realistic tones and really beautiful color," Guttman said, "but it didn't have that artificial Crayola coloration of some of the other products that were out there."

Unlike any other color film, Kodachrome is purely black and white when exposed. The three primary colors that mix to form the spectrum are added in three development steps rather than built into its layers.

Because of the complexity, only Dwayne's Photo, in Parsons, Kan., still processes Kodachrome film. The lab has agreed to continue through 2010, Kodak said.

Hellyar estimates the retail supply of Kodachrome will run out in the fall, though it could be sooner if devotees stockpile. In the U.S., Kodachrome film is available only through photo specialty dealers. In Europe, some retailers, including the Boots chain, carry it.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2009, 11:01:43 AM »
It's sad and all, but not surprising. I still have a roll of K64 in the freezer, but to be honest there are many excellent E-6 slide films out there that are cheaper, processing is easier and cheaper, and they scan better too. I personally get short ends of E100VS motion picture stock for what amounts to about $.80 per roll.

I expect people to hold back rolls to sell on eBay even after processing is no longer available.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

don

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2009, 12:18:25 AM »
Zahc, yes the E-6 films are newer and cheaper to process, but they do not have the permanency that Kodachrome does. I have kodachromes that I shot back in 1967 and they are as vibrant as ever. All of the rest of the slide films have faded.

Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2009, 12:50:33 AM »
Yeah, Kodachrome is forever.  But no surprise--the processing of it is almost insanely complex.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2009, 08:03:28 AM »
Processing can 't be that complex if it can be done for $9.00 a roll of 36. If it were $12.00 a roll it wouldn't make any difference to me; there really is no film that produces results like Kodachrome, nor that have an archive life even close to it.

Seems to me that Kodak simply want to wash their hands of it. A real shame.

The demand is there, it simply isn't that of the masses whose knowledge of photography has become limited to how to press a button and look at a little tv screen - and press the button again. And that many professionals have jumped to the instant results, manipulation, storage and transfer of images.

Me; I have bought a small pile of '64 and will continue to pile my fridge/freezer with as much as I can get while it's around.

http://1000words.kodak.com/default.asp?item=2388083

Dwayne's in Kansas still processes K-14. I guess they just have not learned how complex it is yet; let's hope they don't realize it until we shoot our last couple of rolls.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 08:07:09 AM by LAK »

Thylacine

  • New Member
  • Posts: 28
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2009, 08:54:43 AM »
Better hope the dude doesn't have an accident or anything,
Parsons is about 40 miles from me. I used to work in Parsons.

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2009, 09:59:51 AM »
I would be very surprised if an amateur could set up and maintain kodachrome processing. It's very, very complicated, and includes re-exposing the film in a controlled manner, if the wikipedia article is to be believed anyway. I would be surprised if anyone continued processing, especially if kodak isn't making the film anymore.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2009, 01:00:46 PM »
I tried a few rolls of it in the late 1990s, and wasn't even distantly impressed.

I'll be among the first to concede achieving good digital color is considerably more demanding than most people seem to believe; it's also well worth the effort.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2009, 08:58:52 PM »
Quote
I tried a few rolls of it in the late 1990s, and wasn't even distantly impressed.

Actually I have to say the same. I shot a roll of it on vacation and was somewhat unimpressed, except it's cool how you can see the emulsion on the slides. And it doesn't scan worth a darn.

I might not shed a tear for Kodachrome, but I will bow my head to the passing of Agfa APX100. I still have one roll left in the freezer.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2009, 10:22:38 PM »
Yawn.  When they kill Velvia, that will be a sad day.

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2009, 03:30:38 PM »
oh! how the NGM photographers laughed at my 640x480 quicktake 100

Why nothing will ever replace shooting on film they said...
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2009, 04:20:27 PM »
Nothing ever will.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2009, 10:28:05 PM »
I've taken a lot of digital pictures.  No idea how many.  A lot of them were pretty dang good.

I've taken, at most, 200 pictures on film (including pinhole cameras using photopaper).  Their quality will always be far superior.
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

don

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2009, 11:47:45 PM »
I've taken a lot of digital pictures.  No idea how many.  A lot of them were pretty dang good.

I've taken, at most, 200 pictures on film (including pinhole cameras using photopaper).  Their quality will always be far superior.
   Dream on sir.

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2009, 01:37:39 AM »
Always do.  =)

I suppose that as far as the digital stuff went, I always was a good deal lazier than I was with film. 

Digital, you can take thousands of pictures, delete the ones you don't like, and Photoshop the ones you want to keep.  Store the finished work on a card the size of a 5-stick pack of gum and print off only what you want to hang on the wall.

With the amount of effort that I put into developing the film, selecting the right filter for the darkroom projector, figuring out the right exposure time on the projector, and developing each individual print, I would invariably spend more time getting the shutter speed and f-stop settings just right before pressing the button. 

That amount of prep time, including waiting for just the right moment and making quite sure that the lighting was perfect, always led to better pictures than any I took with my digital.
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,171
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2009, 04:37:25 AM »
That amount of prep time, including waiting for just the right moment and making quite sure that the lighting was perfect, always led to better pictures than any I took with my digital.

Sounds like it's your process that's at fault, and not the medium.  I'll bet if you decided to do the same amount of prep work for the digital stuff as for the film, you'd come out with just as good or better photos.

On the other hand, the expense of film vs. digital means you can get in a lot more practice with digital than with film, and you can experiment a bit more.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2009, 06:28:55 AM »
Although not as many as I should have taken, I have taken hundreds of color print and slide photos. The right film, the right exposure setting and the other associated skills get the results when you get the processed film back. No photoshop needed.

IMO film cameras still have better lenses than their digital counterparts, and they can be at the ready for a quick shot for a long period of time if needed.

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2009, 07:17:08 AM »
As a fairly heavy film user (30-50 rolls a year), I resisted digital until recently when my favorite emulsion nearly doubled in price and local processing times got longer while quality declined.  I sold my primary film gear (Nikon N80 with 2 primes, a zoom, and a nice flash) and bought into digital (Nikon D40, love the fast flash sync for outdoor work).  I took the time to get the settings adjusted to my preference.  The result are images that look as good as my film pics and no need for post exposure processing on the computer.  I don't even shoot RAW anymore, just straight to jpg.  I've put about 1000+ shots on the new camera and it certainly has some benefits over the film version.  I miss having a physical negative that can't be lost when my hardrive crashes, but I've developed a backup routine that would require 3 different computers to fail simultaneously for me to lose an image permanently, so that's not a huge issue.  I still need to come up with a good offsite digital storage site.  A house fire would likely wipe out my collection.  At least with film, storing negatives offsite was trivial (just leave the binder at a relative's house).

I still have my fully manual Olympus OM1 and plenty of B&W film.  I have yet to see a digital B&W image that looked as good to my eyes as a traditional silver print (not that I do many of the latter, but I like having the option).  Plus, I *like* the workflow of an older camera.

Film isn't going to go away, but it will be marginalized to the realm of the hobbyist.  Like other "obsolete" film processes, you'll have to do everything yourself, but the resources will be available for those who are interested.

As for Kodachrome, I can't say I'll miss it.  I gave it a try a couple years ago and couldn't get the results I wanted.  Plus, getting it developed was expensive and time consuming. 

Chris

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2009, 08:57:39 AM »
As a fairly heavy film user (30-50 rolls a year),
That's not heavy film use.  Back when I was seriously into photography, I used 1 or 2 rolls of 35mm per day, plus two or three rolls of 120 a week.  And the folks I was learning were always nagging me to shoot more.

Nothing compares to a quality negative from a medium (or large) format camera.  Digital may have resolution similar to film now, but there's more to image quality than resolution.  Digital still lacks something compared to good film.  I can't quite articulate what it is, but I know when it's missing.

That said, I still use digital most of the time now.  I'm not as serious about my photography as I used to be, and I'm an awful lot lazier.

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2009, 09:34:55 AM »
Quote
I'll bet if you decided to do the same amount of prep work for the digital stuff as for the film, you'd come out with just as good or better photos

I think you mean "just as good or better images". Photograph means something literally. I don't consider data files printed off to patterns of dots using an inkjet printer to be "photographs". Maybe prints or images or documents or posters or something, but not photographs.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,445
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2009, 09:45:27 AM »
I still have my fully manual Olympus OM1 and plenty of B&W film.  I have yet to see a digital B&W image that looked as good to my eyes as a traditional silver print (not that I do many of the latter, but I like having the option).  Plus, I *like* the workflow of an older camera.

I can by no means claim to have any kind of expertise in photography, but even with my layman's eye, in the few examples of B&W digital photography I've seen (and known was digital), they could not compare to film black and white. Maybe that's part of the art of composition that traditional B&W photographers excel at? In looking at color images I more often than not think the digitals are better.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,814
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2009, 10:38:45 AM »
I was reading about an ophthalmologists group that still use kodachrome slides to track and characterise different eye disorders, because the specific type and pattern of eye discoloration evolves over time depending on the disease. They have kodachrome slides going back 30+ years that they can use to reference specific patients' conditions and research and so on, and compare with a reasonable degree of consistency these old slides and new slides.

Now that kodachrome is discontinued, they will probably have to switch to digital, but digital color management being what it is, and cameras coming and going all the time, it's clear to see that maintaining an unchanging color record from digital pictures taken now, and digital pictures taken 30 years from now is going to be a challenge. It won't be enough to take the picture and use the file directly, because you can't be sure of using the same model camera throughout the profession and throughout the country/world. I guess you'd have to take the picture and a picture of a color chart and color-correct the file so that the image on the (color-managed and high-quality) monitor matches the color chart, then save to a robust file format. I don't know very much about color management but I know it's complicated and I doubt these doctors know how to color-correct a digital file to color standards that are accurate based on real-world colors and will be CONSISTENT over time. And at any rate, there is going to be difficulty comparing later digital images with the existing library of color slides.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 10:51:58 AM »
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Digital still lacks something compared to good film.  I can't quite articulate what it is, but I know when it's missing.
I notice that less these days than I did 3-4 years ago when people really started to make the switch from film to digital at the SLR level.  I don't think it was the camera/medium itself as much as the printing technologies available at the time.  Digital printing has really improved these last few years.  The pictures I took and had printed at Wal-Mart this weekend look, to my eyes, just like my film prints.


I think you mean "just as good or better images". Photograph means something literally. I don't consider data files printed off to patterns of dots using an inkjet printer to be "photographs". Maybe prints or images or documents or posters or something, but not photographs.

FWIW, many digital prints done commercially are not inkjet prints but prints made with light and light sensitive paper.  The end result is identical to a "photograph".  The only difference is the digital image is projected onto the paper while the film version is white light shown through a negative.  That was yet one of the reasons my switch to digital has been less "painful".  There are prints called "giclee" that are inkjet style prints, but the benefit of those over lightjet prints is the ability to make creative use of the base material the image is printed upon.

The LightJet® is a digital enlarger. It takes a digital file and uses laser light to expose traditional photographic paper for normal processing. Theoretically, any photographic paper could be used and the LightJet could be programmed for it. The first prints I saw from a LightJet were on Ilfochrome Classic and were very impressive. However, most labs using these machines use Fuji Crystal Archive paper for printing. This a color negative printing paper processed in normal RA-4 chemistry and as such, is easier to control and work with than Ilfochrome. It's imaging characteristics are similar to Ilfochrome in some respects. It has very high color saturation which, with the added control afforded by digital imaging techniques, can produce prints equal to or greater than those produced from exposing film through traditional enlargers, whatever the papers involved.

The material is available in three surfaces-matte, glossy and super glossy. The matte surface, while not truly "flat", is similar to the Ilfochrome Pearl surface. The regular glossy surface is typical of the glossy surfaces on other color printing material and the super glossy is virtually identical in appearance to Ilfochrome material used for printing directly from slides. The super glossy surface is slightly more expensive and, like Ilfochrome more easily scratched. Turnaround time on SuperGlossy prints is usually a day or two longer than for the other two surfaces.

Chris

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2009, 11:38:05 AM »
Nothing compares to a quality negative from a medium (or large) format camera.  Digital may have resolution similar to film now, but there's more to image quality than resolution.  Digital still lacks something compared to good film.  I can't quite articulate what it is, but I know when it's missing.

Are you sure you're not thinking about an attribute like what actual vinyl records do to the sound they reproduce, or tube vs transister amps? 

LAK, I have to agree with you - but exceptions do exist.  I still use an older 1.6MP camera because it has better glass and optical zoom than most of the 5+MP cameras out today.  I just can't blow up a image as much. 

Digital cameras are marketed on the basis of their pixel count, not their glass quality, at least until you get to the better cameras.

Of course, CCD quality varies as well.  Think of it as your 'film', but unlike film, you can't vary it according to your needs, and it isn't used up, so you're not saving money using 'cheap' film when quality isn't important, and using 'expensive' stuff when quality really matters because you're going to be making a life size poster.

Just like film, there's actually multiple sizes of CCD, bigger ones offer more resolution, but can also be 'tuned' to cut down on noise.  It's part of why a good professional camera with a lower MP capability will actually take better pictures than a cheap consumer with more - not only better glass, but a better CCD.

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
Re: They're Taking His Kodachrome Away
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 11:41:57 AM »
Quote
Just like film, there's actually multiple sizes of CCD, bigger ones offer more resolution, but can also be 'tuned' to cut down on noise.  It's part of why a good professional camera with a lower MP capability will actually take better pictures than a cheap consumer with more - not only better glass, but a better CCD.

I don't know how true it is, but when I was educating myself on digital camera tech, I read something that said larger CCDs (35mm size vs the APS sized ones in most SLRs) didn't necessarily result in better images.  Apparently, the larger sensors can have problems related to timely data transfer across the sensor or something like that.  I'll try to find the article...

Found it: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm  scroll down to "DISADVANTAGES OF CCDs IN THE OLD 35mm FILM SIZE".

Chris