Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: tokengirl on December 23, 2010, 03:16:39 pm
-
Well that's it. After December 30th, there's no more Kodachrome processing.
I got my last four rolls back today. These three were from the last roll, which I shot with the XPan. They are quiet and somehow a little bit sad. Pavilion Key is a lonely little place, far from any road and a good boat ride away from the launch. Beautiful at low tide, and the fishing is pretty good there too.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5285756315_68f074731c_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/5285756315/)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5286354384_cb92141f64_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/5286354384/)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5243/5285756771_0cc8238ec3_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/5285756771/)
-
Three very beautiful minimalist images.
And yes it's very sad that Kodachrome has gone the way of the 5-cent cigar.
-
Those three make a lovely tribute to an old friend.
I think those of us who ever shot Kodachrome should have a moment of silence in memory of it on December 30.
Eric
-
Nice shots, Kodachrome in its last days having reached its far distant shore.
Sorry if this has been posted here before...
This charming little gem is some 1922 Kodachrome test footage shot when Kodachrome was barely a twinkle in George Eastman's eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RTnd3Smy8
Sic transit gloria mundi.
-
A fitting tribute. Kodachrome 25 remains my favourite film of all time.
Mike.
-
The very first set in the Kodak movie blew my head off! Heysoos, I thought, Sarah Moon was working in '22?
Then, the next thing I realised was that not a lot has changed in modelling since '22. It's the same pulling of standard-but-idealised looks or expressions, that though perfectly normal in stills, look absurd in movies. However quaint it may look, if you put yourself in the model's position, you'd quickly realise that to do the job you must be totally free of any degree of self-consciousness of the inhibiting kind.
A most enjoyable link, for which, many thanks!
Toke: nice pics as usual, but I'd have forgotten about the third one - not quite got the dynamic (restful and serene if a little melancholic at the same time), of the other two angles. Unfortunately, the cassettes I still have will remain in the freezer, doomed to a cold life in a personal museum. I think I can guess how they feel.
;-)
Rob C
-
??? I tough someone die.
oh well merry xmas
-
??? I tough someone die.
oh well merry xmas
Thank you, and the same to you too, though what a hell of a way this is to spend Christmas Eve... a friggin' computer for company. Love it. Yeah, right.
;-(
Rob C
-
I was late to Kodachrome 25, and used it only briefly. One roll as I recall. I could not afford it as I used to save my money and buy all my film in batches of whatever was cheapest. Kodachrome 25 was never on sale! But as your fine landscapes depict, I do recall those blue skies, deep, and what I would call dense and saturated but understated pallette. Fine indeed.
JMR
-
I was late to Kodachrome 25, and used it only briefly. One roll as I recall. I could not afford it as I used to save my money and buy all my film in batches of whatever was cheapest. Kodachrome 25 was never on sale! But as fine landscapes depict, I do recall those blue skies, deep, and what I would call dense and satured but understated pallette. Fine indeed.
JMR
I hardly ever used 25; it was just too contrasty for me but 64 was superb and I could hand-hold it!
Rob C
-
Great article in the NY Times about Kodachrome and Dwayne's Photo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30film.html?_r=1
-
??? I tough someone die.
Someone did die. Last gasp today.
-
All three are lovely shots. I bet they'd look great printed in a large size.
-
All three are lovely shots. I bet they'd look great printed in a large size.
+1.
-
I think those of us who ever shot Kodachrome should have a moment of silence in memory of it on December 30.
Eric
Except me, who once returned from a three month trip to India with 30 rolls of K64 only to find that Kodak had either mis-processed it or mis-manufactured it. Two stops underexposed and, like, totally magenta. Kodak replaced the raw stock. No other compensation, just like it says on the box. ::)
-
Film is leaving us faster than 'digital' really reached to emulate its look (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=40779.0)
(as far as I can tell).
Peter
--
-
Except me, who once returned from a three month trip to India with 30 rolls of K64 only to find that Kodak had either mis-processed it or mis-manufactured it. Two stops underexposed and, like, totally magenta. Kodak replaced the raw stock. No other compensation, just like it says on the box. ::)
In 1978 I did the Overland, Thailand to London by road and train, taking a year to do the trip. I used K64, K200 and Tri-X. Interestingly I had the opposite experience to you. The K64 and K200 were developed without any problems. The Tri-X however was overdeveloped by at least two stops and was so grainy as to be barely printable. It took me twenty years and scanning to see the images with some basic quality.
I remember being on a two day walk just outside of Darjeeling in the Himalayan foothills. I came upon this forrest that had the most stunning green moss I have ever seen. I had Tri-X in my camera and was half way through the roll. Should I swap it for Kodachrome? I didn't have a tripod and the Kodachrome was way too slow for any decent images. Ah, if only I had my 5D mkII I may have had an image to remember the scene.
No, I don't miss Kodachrome or film, on the other hand I don't miss 3 MP digicams as well. It's just taken 30 years to get to a situation where I am happy with the results I'm getting from my camera.
Cheers,
-
Except me, who once returned from a three month trip to India with 30 rolls of K64 only to find that Kodak had either mis-processed it or mis-manufactured it. Two stops underexposed and, like, totally magenta. Kodak replaced the raw stock. No other compensation, just like it says on the box. ::)
I sympathize, Peter. On my one trip to Iceland in 1974 I shot some 23 rolls of Kodachrome and sent them all off to one lab to be processed. And on that day, something got messed up in the processing that left streaks of some strange gunk all over many of the slides on all rolls. I had a lengthy correspondence with Kodak, who eventually asked me to send the bad slides back to see if they could clean them. They were able to get the gunk off about half of the damaged slides, and fortunately most of the best images escaped relatively unscathed.
After that I never sent more than two rolls to any one lab on any one day, and of course I never encountered a bad-processing day again.
Eric