Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Kodachrome, the rich color film beloved by professional photographers, family slide-show hosts, and presidential-assassination filmmakers, to bite the dust as soon as 2009   (ap.google.com) divider line 75
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

3171 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Sep 2008 at 4:47 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-09-21 03:53:46 PM  
i234.photobucket.com
Angered
 
2008-09-21 03:59:07 PM  
That's cool. I have a setting in my RAW conversion program that does the same thing.
 
2008-09-21 04:04:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

1949. Like it was yesterday.
 
2008-09-21 04:06:30 PM  
ManRay: That's cool. I have a setting in my RAW conversion program that does the same thing.

Yeah, well, after 2012, man, nobody's gonna be shooting in RAW.
 
2008-09-21 04:09:58 PM  
As long as they keep making Ektachrome Fuji Provia I'll be happy.
 
2008-09-21 04:20:06 PM  
But it gave the nice bright colors, it gave the greens of summer...
 
2008-09-21 04:25:07 PM  
All you snobby "digital will never be as good as film" elitists need to grow up. I defy you to spot any differences between what DarthBrooks posted, and this:

img411.imageshack.us

/JPEG: it's good enough for anyone
 
2008-09-21 04:27:16 PM  
img140.imageshack.us


Would be outraged if he could remember that he wrote that song
 
2008-09-21 04:28:41 PM  
Etchy333 is correct. I can't see any difference at all.

/When I take off my trifocals.
 
2008-09-21 04:39:26 PM  
Well, I do have a Nikon camera, and I love to take a photograph, however I am indifferent toward mama taking my Kodachrome away as it's a DSLR.
 
2008-09-21 04:46:17 PM  
This is truly sad.

I'm a photography purist. I guess I have to learn to contemporize, man.

My favorite was B&W in high school. I had my Minolta SLR and took pictures of everything. There's a lot that you can say and not say with the absence of color.
 
2008-09-21 04:51:01 PM  
"Velvia" (Fujichrome) was better than Kodachrome and was killed off a few years ago :(

/loved that stuff
//A $200 used SLR and a roll of velvia has more resolution than a $3000; 20 megapixel digital camera
///I used to shoot it at ISO 40, god that shiat was beautiful
 
2008-09-21 04:58:18 PM  
tragic. digital is good, but can't look like that.
 
2008-09-21 04:59:03 PM  
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away. :(
 
2008-09-21 04:59:46 PM  
I don't want to sound like wiener, but I am truly impressed by what can be achieved with a $300 camera, and $100 printer. It's a tough sell on the merits of film.
 
2008-09-21 05:00:46 PM  
robbiedo: I don't want to sound like wiener, but I am truly impressed by what can be achieved with a $300 camera, and $100 printer. It's a tough sell on the merits of film.

That is like saying you have a Saturn and can't figure out why someone would want a Ferrari.
 
2008-09-21 05:03:01 PM  
strangeguitar: Angered

On the very Boobies!
 
2008-09-21 05:05:10 PM  
everything looks worse in black and white
 
2008-09-21 05:09:59 PM  
Damn you, strangeguitar!
 
2008-09-21 05:11:58 PM  
DarthBrooks: 1949. Like it was yesterday.

amazing.
 
2008-09-21 05:13:23 PM  
eqtworld: "Velvia" (Fujichrome) was better than Kodachrome and was killed off a few years ago :(

/loved that stuff
//A $200 used SLR and a roll of velvia has more resolution than a $3000; 20 megapixel digital camera
///I used to shoot it at ISO 40, god that shiat was beautiful


I bought a bag of 50 rolls of Provia 100f off eBay because I knew it would disappear soon. Unfortunately, I lost the bag when it was still half full. That was some sweet film.
 
2008-09-21 05:14:03 PM  
Anyone posted any Paul Simon references yet?
 
2008-09-21 05:15:13 PM  
RobertBruce: tragic. digital is good, but can't look like that.

Ah-hem.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
 
2008-09-21 05:15:41 PM  
ecmoRandomNumbers: This is truly sad.

I'm a photography purist. I guess I have to learn to contemporize, man.

My favorite was B&W in high school. I had my Minolta SLR and took pictures of everything. There's a lot that you can say and not say with the absence of color.


I am too, except I've learned recently that digital is where it's at today. Yes, I took quite a lot of kodachrome back in the day but now with my trusty Nikon D40 (hell, I've taken fantastic shots with my Canon Powershot A75 for that matter) and a couple of 4gb SD cards I think momma can take my kodachrome away.

I recently went on a photo safari with that D40 and two SD cards and came back with 1,820 photographs in one day. Of course only 20 of them were worth a damn but jeebus, you can burn a lot of shots with digital. Lots of it is good too.
 
2008-09-21 05:15:55 PM  
pxlboy: DarthBrooks: 1949. Like it was yesterday.

amazing.


This is even more amazing.
 
2008-09-21 05:19:25 PM  
eqtworld: That is like saying you have a Saturn and can't figure out why someone would want a Ferrari.

That is definitely one way to twist my words. Are you a Republican spinmeister?
 
2008-09-21 05:26:15 PM  
Weaps: ecmoRandomNumbers: This is truly sad.

I'm a photography purist. I guess I have to learn to contemporize, man.

My favorite was B&W in high school. I had my Minolta SLR and took pictures of everything. There's a lot that you can say and not say with the absence of color.

I am too, except I've learned recently that digital is where it's at today. Yes, I took quite a lot of kodachrome back in the day but now with my trusty Nikon D40 (hell, I've taken fantastic shots with my Canon Powershot A75 for that matter) and a couple of 4gb SD cards I think momma can take my kodachrome away.

I recently went on a photo safari with that D40 and two SD cards and came back with 1,820 photographs in one day. Of course only 20 of them were worth a damn but jeebus, you can burn a lot of shots with digital. Lots of it is good too.


I think you have a very healthy view about photography. I probably need to get over my nostalgia.

But damn it was fun! I remember spooling my film rolls in complete blackness in the darkroom and developing them. I can still smell the stop-bath.
 
2008-09-21 05:28:14 PM  
While it is a sad day to see Kodachrome go, it was going to happen at some point. Why?

The K-14 process Kodachrome uses is only done by ONE public lab in the world (and the only other lab that does it is Kodak's private testing lab). It, for all practical purposes, takes a college degree in Chemistry to keep the process correct. While I can take E-6 process chromes (Fuji Velvia/Provia, Kodak Ektachrome)to a local lab, everyone's Kodachrome has to go to the same lab. When you're looking at $0.75+ a shot just for film and processing plus a week or two turnaround, verses almost nil for digital (plus Photoshop workflows to get the Kodachrome look), or somewhere around $.30-$.40 for E-6 chromes at a local lab (and less for a mailer from Fuji, which ironically goes to the same lab that does all the K-14), it won't take long to die just on an economical standpoint - there just are not enough people shooting Kodachrome to make a profit anymore.
 
zez
2008-09-21 05:32:53 PM  
/misses my manual vivitar with just a needle meter
 
2008-09-21 05:36:10 PM  
pjc51: pxlboy: DarthBrooks: 1949. Like it was yesterday.

amazing.

This is even more amazing.


That was cool. Thanks.
 
2008-09-21 05:40:17 PM  
Eh, I was always a Fuji guy to be honest, and I thought kodak announced they were pulling out of the film market to focus on imaging equpiment years ago?

Still, sorta sad. Single tear. Until lately, the quality in digital cameras just hasnt been worth the cost, in my mind, but now I'm about ready to put my film cameras aside and pick up a decent digital SLR.
 
2008-09-21 05:52:08 PM  
farm3.static.flickr.com

Bring back sepia!

/and those awesome stovepipe hats.
 
2008-09-21 06:02:01 PM  
DarthBrooks

That 1949 picture is amazing. I thought it was a "re-creation" for a movie shot, or something like that, before realizing it was a real 1949 picture.
 
2008-09-21 06:04:27 PM  
anoncow: there just are not enough people shooting Kodachrome to make a profit anymore.

:(
 
2008-09-21 06:05:50 PM  
Ok, I guess I'm a lame photography purist. I just don't see that digital pictures are as "real" as developed film. Even a print taken from a high quality digital camera and printed doesn't seem as "real". The printer takes something away and never looks as good. To me at least. God, I suck.
 
2008-09-21 06:14:46 PM  
I used to shoot slides. Kodachrome 64, and then Fuji 100 when I found a local camera shop that processed the Fugi slides overnight for a third of the cost of K64 processing. When I shot slides with a Canon AE1, I took my photography much more seriously. I can go back and look through all the slides I took, and they are well framed, composed and timed. With digital, I wait for the subject to show up and blast a series of rapid fire pics, hoping one of them will be the right one. Framing is a little off? Crop it in photoshop. Exposure wrong? Plenty of options.

Digital is nice, but it lets you get lazy.
 
2008-09-21 06:24:30 PM  
Great_Milenko: Digital is nice, but it lets you get lazy.

Photoshop is a blessing and a curse, I guess.
 
2008-09-21 06:30:41 PM  
DarthBrooks: 1949. Like it was yesterday.

It is an amazing shot. I've got numerous carousels of slides my dad took in the 40's-70's. The color is still amazing. That being said, did you happen to scan that photo on a digital scanner? Kind of like comparing vinyl to CDs over the internet.

/wiseass, I know it.
//bet it looks incredible projected onto a wall
 
2008-09-21 06:34:26 PM  
Is it just me, or was that article a whole heap of '...coulda...maybe...might...perhaps...' ?

ManRay: That's cool. I have a setting in my RAW conversion program that does the same thing.

I desperately hope you're kidding.

/going to run through some roll film this week
 
2008-09-21 06:39:07 PM  
Barnacles!: Would be outraged if he could remember that he wrote that song

That picture reminds me of an old story in the National Lampoon about Paul Simon wanting to join the Traveling Wilburys and being pissed that the only "Wilbury Names" the other guys would give him to choose from were "Wiggy" or "Shrimp-o".

A hugely talented guy though.

/But he is short
//And bald
///NTTAWWT
////The further off-topic, the more slashies!
 
2008-09-21 06:47:21 PM  
 
2008-09-21 06:59:11 PM  
Etchy333: All you snobby "digital will never be as good as film" elitists need to grow up. I defy you to spot any differences between what DarthBrooks posted, and this:

/JPEG: it's good enough for anyone


sites.google.com

Sadly, I never shot Kodachrome, and it looks like I never will.

That said, when I get the scratch, I so want a Sony α900... 24 megapixels, full-frame image sensor. Plus I guess it works with my existing Maxxum lenses.
 
2008-09-21 07:07:22 PM  
Damn photo-graphy will NEVER replace paintings.

/The lawn. Off. Now.
 
2008-09-21 07:17:48 PM  
www.pyramidofman.com
Pharaochrome holds up pretty good too.
 
2008-09-21 07:46:39 PM  
Kodachrome had very little latitude. Shadows were black, and overexposed areas were completely washed out. It was great stuff to learn photography on.
 
2008-09-21 08:23:09 PM  
Dear Jerk: Kodachrome had very little latitude. Shadows were black, and overexposed areas were completely washed out. It was great stuff to learn photography on.

Yup. When I decided to go SLR circa 1990, I began with a Minolta SRT202 - nothing like manual match-needle exposure to force you to pay attention. I quickly gravitated to Kodachrome, because you have to get the exposure right - there's no way a darkroom can "fix" under- or overexposure.

Now, I'm using a first-generation Canon Digital Rebel, and my slide experience really paid off, since a digital sensor acts a lot like slide film with its (lack of) exposure latitude.

While the Rebel makes beautiful 13x19" prints, its images wouldn't look all that good projected on a 6' screen, compared to Kodachrome 64.

As much as I miss film, I don't miss the hassles, or the expense. Also, if I shoot in raw mode, some time spent processing can bring out detail that would be lost in shadows otherwise. This can be especially useful with a backlit subject.
 
2008-09-21 08:28:02 PM  
Good 35mm film like this is about equivalent to 30-40 megapixel digital resolution, so we're just catching up with $3000 camera bodies. Medium format, forget it - probably over 100MP.

OTOH, digital kicks film's ass in linearity and sensitivity now. As long as you keep things within range. Film is more forgiving to exposure. I've been shooting digital (amateur) for about 5 years now, occasionally I'll look back at a film print of something I did 20 years ago and think holy crap that looks nice, and I had no idea how to shoot back then, and it was just crappy film, drugstore developed.
 
2008-09-21 08:53:52 PM  
pjc51: This is even more amazing.

Wow. Truly. Thanks for giving me a great link to take breaks at tomorrow!
 
2008-09-21 09:05:23 PM  
Bacontastesgood:
OTOH, digital kicks film's ass in linearity and sensitivity now. As long as you keep things within range. Film is more forgiving to exposure.

Slide film has always been unforgiving in terms of exposure latitude. It's easy to blow out the highlights or lose shadow detail if exposure isn't good. My rule of thumb was to always expose for highlights when shooting film because you can usually
get some detail back from shadows, but blown highlights is detail you'll never get back.

Digital is a lot like that too. If you blow out the highlights, that detail is lost forever. It's easier to recover details in
digital though.
 
2008-09-21 09:09:31 PM  
www.shorpy.com
Kodachrome and other excellent old pics (even back thru the Civil War), all spiffed up. I spend my lunch break there Mon-Fri.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report