Topic: Kodachrome RIP? (Read 6039 times)

j-land · « **on:** September 24, 2008, 04:58:11 pm »

Besides an opportunity to repeat the "film is dead" mantra, why is this mentioned on the Photokina page, with nary a word about the new Ektar 100 film that Kodak introduced?

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2008, 05:09:12 pm »

Because reading one item about film is already one too many?

j-land · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2008, 05:32:20 pm »

Quote

Because reading one item about film is already one too many?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Heh, exactly.... so why mention it at all?

michael · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2008, 05:50:16 pm »

Because it's interesting? Because it's current? Because it's the end of an era?

Michael

barryfitzgerald · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2008, 05:51:44 pm »

Oh dear!

I cannot speak as to why it got a news report on the front page, it ain't my site.

I am not a Kodachrome super fan, as in user..but I can appreciate the appeal of the medium. There is some pretty nice stuff here, albeit larger format stuff, damn fine some of it..

http://www.shorpy.com/4x5-large-format-kodachromes

I like this one a good bit too.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/137?size=_original

Until Kodak say something official, I wouldn't bank on anything one way or the other. If it does go, then I bet a few people will max out their credit cards, and make a killing on ebay ;-)

Not sure we need to get into the "film is dead" debate again. Yes it is a smaller market, yes there are less films available now (though b&w is still strong), yet kodak has brought out a new Ektar ISO 100 emulsion. So no, it isnt dead is it! Obviously!!!
Only Kodak know if Kodachrome is RIP..

j-land · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2008, 06:31:33 pm »

Quote

Because it's interesting? Because it's current? Because it's the end of an era?

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure (the "why mention it" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek), but I'm curious why you would stick that in the middle of a report about a trade show where new film products are being introduced...

BrianSmith · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2008, 07:14:19 pm »

OK, Michael, then maybe you'll enjoy this AP story about Dwayne Photo in Parsons, Kansas.

The last place on the planet still processing Kodachrome....

mikeseb · « **Reply #7 on:** September 25, 2008, 09:36:55 am »

Quote

Because reading one item about film is already one too many?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You sound almost as much the zealot as the no-digital gang over at APUG.

Rob C · « **Reply #8 on:** September 25, 2008, 10:38:44 am »

Kodachrome 64 Pro, scanned, has given me some of the best black/white prints I ever made, including those from original b/w films. The skin tones available from the material were fantastic even at its its zenith as a colour medium (of course, others will say that for Ektachrome instead) and that the same holds true for b/w conversion is remarkable.

Apart from the fact that it was a film that lasted frozen forever, it had a massive resistance to latent image failure - you could have it processed at the end of a couple of weeks of shooting and the early shots were as good as the last. Velvia seemed quite good in that respect too, but not a choice, for me, for skin,

I thought it had been stopped a while ago, Kodachrome, with processing only in Switzerland until stocks had run out...

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #9 on:** September 25, 2008, 10:41:07 am »

I haven't used film for about five years, but I will shed many tears when Kodachrome finally dies completely. That was (is) a magnificent film.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2008, 11:24:09 am »

Quote

You sound almost as much the zealot as the no-digital gang over at APUG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One question makes me a zealot?

juicy · « **Reply #11 on:** September 25, 2008, 01:44:58 pm »

Quote

I haven't used film for about five years, but I will shed many tears when Kodachrome finally dies completely. That was (is) a magnificent film.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

+1
I shoot a roll of film every once in a while just for a different experience and to have fun. Kodachrome colors are magic.

J

ps. [a href=\"http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1095/1147&pq-locale=en_GB]Kodachrome processing lab info[/url]

Josef Isayo · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2008, 12:48:04 pm »

I have six digital cameras which is two less than my film cameras. It's very possible to use both mediums in perfect harmony.

Misirlou · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2008, 12:51:24 pm »

I put a roll of E100S through a Rolleiflex a couple of weeks ago. I took the film down to Walmart and had it processed and printed for, get this, $1.83.

Rob C · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2008, 03:44:07 pm »

Quote

I put a roll of E100S through a Rolleiflex a couple of weeks ago. I took the film down to Walmart and had it processed and printed for, get this, $1.83.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No wonder the bottom fell out of the processing laboratory industry.

Rob C

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2008, 04:01:47 pm »

Didn't walmart just announce they're shutting down wet labs?

Misirlou · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2008, 06:08:29 pm »

Quote

Didn't walmart just announce they're shutting down wet labs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At those prices, it's hard to see how you could make any money. They didn't process it locally though. Had to be sent somewhere else. Nobody in my town processes transparencies or non-35mm film.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2008, 03:26:33 pm »

I was thinking about this while waiting to see if my turn at the ledge comes up before my realtor gets back to me on that big refrigerator box under the exit ramp.

Even when I was having my film developed only (not even cut into strips) I was paying more than $1.83. $4-5 I think. When I was doing the full set of prints with (crappy) scans I think it was closer to $15-18.

Of course both of those were same day. I suppose everyone is sending them to the same place now.

Rob C · « **Reply #18 on:** September 30, 2008, 04:28:59 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin,Sep 29 2008, 07:26 PM

I was thinking about this while waiting to see if my turn at the ledge comes up before my realtor gets back to me on that big refrigerator box under the exit ramp.

Mr P

You wouldn´t like it: it´s designed for two families to share.

Been wondering much the same wonder myself as the meltdown seems to be quite out of my hands to control or to influence in any way.

Don´t like things like that.

I´ve been thinking a lot about horsepower, too, not that I want the added expense of feeding a four-legged one, but why there is such a need for high numbers. I have a humble Ford Escort which I bought new ten years ago. It has 115 bhp, 1800 cc of engine and will sit well above the Spanish motorway limit of 120 kph all day long with five adults inside. Why is more needed?

Why does anybody need more than a million bucks in any one year? Why do they need a boat longer than 25metres? Why does a couple with four kids need a house with seven bedrooms? Why does a new model of everything have to come out every year when keeping the same one, if it´s good, reduces the tooling costs and allows the price to manufacturer and buyer to fall to levels where so many more can buy it? Why, why, why?

Crazy, innit?

Rob C

greygrad · « **Reply #19 on:** October 04, 2008, 08:38:38 pm »

Quote from: mikeseb

You sound almost as much the zealot as the no-digital gang over at APUG.

That's a bit unfair. They just think there's more to creating a great print than choosing an ICC profile, a rendering intent, and hitting the print button in photoshop half-a-dozen times. Who knows, maybe they're right?

Author Topic: Kodachrome RIP? (Read 6039 times)

DarkPenguin

DarkPenguin

DarkPenguin

DarkPenguin