American Icon Kodachrome is fading away

[colterphoto1]

Today's 'digital kids' forget a couple major items. Two things you cannot fix in photoshop are the pose and the lighting angle.

I prefer to 'get it right' in the camera, but I know how to embellish using the new tools.

But the buying public doens't really care so long as it's 'good enough'.

[seti]

I know a married couple who are both local artist who went digital only to switch back to film later. They said there was something missing with digital. Digital just can't match film for everything. Digital can look really good and the ease factor is the major selling point but film reigns supreme in my book.

[G.Kennedy]

........., but I respectfully disagree.  The craft is the same, but there is another set of tools............

and i respectfully disagree with you. The craftsmanship is gone. Yes there is a new set of tools, and if those tools were applied correctly, it would open up an entirely new creative direction. But the simplicity with which a digital camera can perfectly expose a frame ... is not used to allow the photographers more time for creativity .... it is used to pump out mass produced images.

And I have to agree with Colter .... no amount of photoshop can make up for crappy light. We have art directors having us shoot at noon on a sunny day. There is no fixing that ....

But the better way to think of it is .... There is no reason to HAVE to fix it ..... we did not need photoshop before ... because we were given the time to get it right in the field.

It should be the same ... its just f-stops and shutter speeds .... but trust me ... from the field .... it is not the same. There are now "Proffesional" photographers that can not make an f-stop conversion from Velvia to TriX. They just can't. They can take fine photographs ... but their understanding of light and how it works .... is not there.

different times for sure .... and thats why I chose to step away. But I must say .... I do miss the days of making exposure calculations as the sun is setting and your photographing a black car in the desert with howling wind ...... on 8x10 film .... You really felt fulfilled that you were a pro when you could nail it every day.

Now you just go look at the monitor ... yawn.

[Travis In Austin]

I really liked the K 25 if you had the light. You could get the lab to do a 4x5 internegative and blow it up to 16 x 20 and see no grain, it took something above 30 x 40 to even see grain. The reason you could get such fine grain is it used a process of dye coupling, whatever that is. Kodak used to have the corner on that market, and then they got pounded in anti-trust cases. Larry will remember this, maybe even Michael, but when you bought a roll of Kodachrome it came with a "mailer" to mail the roll back to a Kodak processing plant. This is when Kodak put the film in metal cans so it would not get smashed in the mail, and the cans were great for storing other sfuff. The mailer included postage prepaid to Kodak, and they mailed the slides back to you. In other words, the cost of the film included processing. The Govt. broke that up under antitrust and said they had to allow others to process it. So they were forced to sell others their processing equipment, etc. If I am not mistaken it was Berkely Labs that sued them and won.

But I must say that I shot way more Ektachrome, and most of that was 400 pushed to 1600. Back then you could bring a camera to a concert, and as long as there was no flash you could shoot away without any problem. It was great stuff.

What ever happend to Ciba Chrome for prints, they had some great papers.

Travis

[colterphoto1]

Yes I remember the Kodak Mailers, even have a few of those old metal film cans around here somewhere. Yes they were nifty for storing various and sundry items (sundry?).

Dad printed a few CibaChrome prints with a home kit, really gloss paper with very brilliant colors. Beautiful stuff.

M

[LarryC]

I really liked the K 25 if you had the light.

Absolutely! It was my favorite film, and I went to great lengths to meet the low-light challenge. Also, Kodachrome 400 was great for nighttime flash pics, so that's another great loss for a few of us.

I hadn't realized that Kodak was forced to sell their equipment/secrets to other others. Terrible decision IMO.

Cibachrome was stunning, and I have several great Ciba prints. But, it's faded away like Kodachrome, and I read somewhere that the last Cibachrome plant (in Europe) closed last year. However, I can't find that info any more via Google, and I don't know for a fact that it's no longer available. The days of professional processing shops devoted to film and doing Cibachrome are definitely gone.

[Olorin]

........., but I respectfully disagree. The craft is the same, but there is another set of tools............

and i respectfully disagree with you. The craftsmanship is gone. Yes there is a new set of tools, and if those tools were applied correctly, it would open up an entirely new creative direction. But the simplicity with which a digital camera can perfectly expose a frame ... is not used to allow the photographers more time for creativity .... it is used to pump out mass produced images.

And I have to agree with Colter .... no amount of photoshop can make up for crappy light. We have art directors having us shoot at noon on a sunny day. There is no fixing that ....

But the better way to think of it is .... There is no reason to HAVE to fix it ..... we did not need photoshop before ... because we were given the time to get it right in the field.

Let me put it another way and see if we can bridge this disagreement, and if we can't, then I'm done, because I don't understand why we're disagreeing. I actually think we agree more than we differ, but find ourselves separated by a common language.

The fundamentals of good photography are the same whether using film or digital. A good photographer is a good photographer whether using film or digital. A good photographer takes the time he needs to get the shot he wants, regardless of whether he's using film or digital.

A hack is also a hack, whether using film or digital. All I'm saying here is that the tool doesn't make the artist, and it doesn't break him either. It's up to the photographer to apply the craftsmanship, whether he's using film or digital.

[seti]

Speaking of film. I walked into an antique mall the other day to find this stunniing collection of cameras. They are all in great shape. There are hundreds of cameras and all kinds but you can only see a small portion of them in this photo. The guy must have 5 stereo cameras and I've only ever seen a couple in person. It is very difficult for me not to walk off with several of these. The large format view camera to the left has its own cart all for $450.

[Amy]

A hack is also a hack, whether using film or digital. All I'm saying here is that the tool doesn't make the artist, and it doesn't break him either. It's up to the photographer to apply the craftsmanship, whether he's using film or digital.

I agree with you, Olorin. There is an art to the digtal as well. I don't know very many people who can take truly complelling pictures, no matter the tools. It really is a talent, IMO.

[jacksonbart]

I miss my Winnetou Viewmaster.

[JJkizak]

The 3D Viewmaster is just around the corner in the digital world.

[G.Kennedy]

................... because I don't understand why we're disagreeing.  I actually think we agree more than we differ, ............

Yes ... really we are talking about two different topics. Digital photography as a tool is a great thing.

Digital Photogaphy has changed the "photographic Industry" in a direction that does not agree with me. I don't really need to comment more on it ... much better to have a discussion over a beer and hash these topics out in person. Something my old school friends and I have done a few times.

I used to work on many crews for many photographers. Now I only work for one guy. We have a crew of 3 assistants who all came through the film ranks. All 1st assistants. While we photograph all digital ... the approach is from a very film direction, meaning .... Looking at the light and the composition first ... then taking the image. Many of the digital era photogs and assistants want instant gratification.... meaning .... making the image first .... then looking at a monitor to see what it looks like.

Make no mistake ... I believe in digital photography ... It is an awesome tool .... It is the way it is used that often rubs me wrong.

[colterphoto1]

A hack is also a hack, whether using film or digital. All I'm saying here is that the tool doesn't make the artist, and it doesn't break him either. It's up to the photographer to apply the craftsmanship, whether he's using film or digital.

I agree with you, Olorin. There is an art to the digtal as well. I don't know very many people who can take truly complelling pictures, no matter the tools. It really is a talent, IMO.

Why, thank you Amy! [:$]

[colterphoto1]

" Looking at the light and the composition first ... then taking the
image. Many of the digital era photogs and assistants want instant
gratification.... meaning .... making the image first .... then looking
at a monitor to see what it looks like."

This is my experience also. Film photographers look for the quality and direction of light, take TIME with framing the image and selecting the background, lens, perspective, etc. The expense of film and processing was a GOOD thing, it slowed us down. I used to use a tripod for nearly every portrait with my Hasselblad so I could carefully compose, drag the shutter and get very sharp images.

Nowadays I know of digital photographers who will take 6,000 images at a wedding.They don't even own a tripod and don't do multiple lighting for portraits. Heck if you take enough photos I guess you're bound to get a few good ones. We worked with a bit more respect of the art and more deliberation when we squeezed the trigger.

I'm sure there are a few good photographers with digital cameras but the low cost of the cameras, the absense of a 'per shot' cost, and this mentality of 'fix it in photoshop' has spawned a generation of hacks.

and that's my f2

Michael

[LarryC]

the NGS must have found the depth of the film and its brilliant reds and yellows to be especially capable of showing the great scenics of So. and Central Utah, at the

Kodachrome Basin State Park

From www.Toddshikingguide.com -- Around the year 1900, cattlemen from Cannonville and Henrieville ventured into this basin, called it thorny pasture and used it for winter grazing. In the summer of 1949, the National Geographic Society sent an exploration party to document and photograph this uncharted area. Using Kodak's Kodachrome film to capture the areas vivid colors, they named it Kodachrome Flat. The story of the exploration can be found in the September 1949 issue of National Geographic Magazine. The area was designated as a state park in 1962. Fearing repercussions from the Kodak film company for using the name Kodachrome, the name was changed to Chimney Rock State Park, however, within a few years Kodak gave permission to rename the park Kodachrome Basin State Park.

[Amy]

Found this article today, and thought I'd dig up this thread.

1968:

[Islander]

Nowadays I know of digital photographers who will take 6,000 images at a wedding.They don't even own a tripod and don't do multiple lighting for portraits. Heck if you take enough photos I guess you're bound to get a few good ones.

Not necessarily. I was talking photography with an acquaintance yesterday who mentioned that he'd shot 47,000 images in the last few years with his point-and-shoot digicam, but knew nothing about photography and was rarely pleased with his pictures. I suggested he take a course, or at least try using the Rule of Thirds for starters. It was an unfamiliar concept to him, but he thought it sounded logical.

Even with shooting since I was 16, I don't think I've shot 47,000 pictures in my whole life, although I do have 2500 images of my favourite model/ex-gf, shot over eight years. I'm happy to say I'm pleased with most of my pictures and my only digital camera is the one in my cellphone.

[LarryC]

Thanks Amy for posting that article. Very sad IMO. Only Kodachrome could have made most of those pics in the 43-slide show, and they'll last forever.

Larry

[seti]

This makes me very sad. Film ROCKS!

[mark1101]

I don't even do "photography" anymore except the portable digital camera for family pics and such.

When I was a kid in school learning photography I can remember using both the Kodachrome and Ektachrome although now I can't remember the differences really.

What got me was the comments at the bottom of the article. Obviously passionate Kodachrome users.

However, the sales of Kodachrome do not justify keeping it. I'm just wondering if this is a case of people not buying it, but at the same time not wanting it to be disconinued. The performance of the film is incredible. There is just not enough people using it anymore because digital is convenient, less expensive...............and people have slowly been conditioned that the quality is good enough.

This is exactly what happened in audio.