Travel Photography - Kodachrome no more

I know that it is a digital world, but it is kind of sad that Kodak has announced the end of Kodachrome. (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=15359&pq-locale=en_US) As they admit, it does have a unique look.

I have a couple of rolls in the freezer. I had better use them and get them off to Dwayne's while they still process it.

Wow. Almost incomprehensible to me. I started out in 35mm photography loving that stuff. Tough to use due to the contrast but what an image if you got it right. It was also the first color emulsion if I remember correctly. I saw pictures at the Museum of Photography in London at an exhibit of photos taken with it during the Great Depression by photographers from the WPA.

So long K25, and thanks for the memories :(

Wow. Almost incomprehensible to me. I started out in 35mm photography loving that stuff. Tough to use due to the contrast but what an image if you got it right. It was also the first color emulsion if I remember correctly. I saw pictures at the Museum of Photography in London at an exhibit of photos taken with it during the Great Depression by photographers from the WPA.

So long K25, and thanks for the memories :(When I started it was ASA 10.

I heard this story on the radio today and was amazed that there's apparently only ONE lab in the WORLD that still processes the stuff.

My Kodachrome slides are still saturated and bright, some of them 50 years later. Sic transit gloria Kodak.

Really sad news. :( :( :( :( :(

What now? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I remember many years ago hearing a rep from Kodak say that Kodachrome was their most difficult processing technology. By comparison, processing Ektachrome was a piece of cake. I'll miss Kodachrome, but frankly I'm surprised it's been around as long as it has.

For the geekier among us, consider that Kodachrome processing was considered 'within tolerances' by Kodak if it was 1/3 stop over or under developed. :eek::eek:

Gadgetfreak- imagine life as a photographer for Vogue in the 1950's. You were given two sheets of 8 X 10 Kodachrome to do a fashion shoot. The second sheet was in case the model blinked! (I read this; I wasn't born yet in those days..)

I remember many years ago hearing a rep from Kodak say that Kodachrome was their most difficult processing technology. By comparison, processing Ektachrome was a piece of cake. I'll miss Kodachrome, but frankly I'm surprised it's been around as long as it has.

For the geekier among us, consider that Kodachrome processing was considered 'within tolerances' by Kodak if it was 1/3 stop over or under developed. :eek::eek:

Gadgetfreak- imagine life as a photographer for Vogue in the 1950's. You were given two sheets of 8 X 10 Kodachrome to do a fashion shoot. The second sheet was in case the model blinked! (I read this; I wasn't born yet in those days..)

The other interesting thing about Kodachrome is that it was a silver emulsion that was washed off in the processing steps. At least when I first started using it Kodak made almost as much recovering and reusing the silver as they made from the processing charge. Im not sure they were still making it in sheet film by the time I started using it. I think I remember using KR64 in 120 format though. All of my sheet film (4x5) was either print or Fujichrome.

I smile when I remember that I 'stole' 10 rolls of Kodachrome film along with my Dad's photo equipment when I decided I wanted to begin taking photos.... then proceeded to go off to Egypt and used all of them... :D

I think those were the days when the film included processing... ^

Still, I can remember my Dad chewing me off because I had used his best film as my first solo shots behind the viewfinder... :eek:

RIP Kodachrome !!!

When I started it was with the old ASA 110 used in the Kodak pocket camera Tele-Instamatic. It's amazing where we came from and where we are today with digital technology.

It's amazing where we came from and where we are today with digital technology.

I am not yet sure just how far we have really come.

I suppose that at the low end, the ~$200 digi compacts, the baby birthday party shooters are thrilled, but convenience is the only real advantage I see so far. The exorbitantly high cost of [near-throwaway 6-month product cycling] digital equipment offsets most if not all film and processing savings.

Digital does however seem to reward [at least in the short term] the lazy and undisciplined DSLR shooter.

I do find it interesting though that some of the most popular PP actions out there are ones that [try to] emulate the look of Velvia, Portra...and Kodachrome.

In April was visiting the folks and we pulled out the old slides to have a good reminisce--the Kodachromes were still gorgeous, some of them shot as far back as the late 1950's. I am glad that in some of my own travels 1980-2005 +/-, I used a lot of Kodachrome 25 and 64 when conditions permitted (latecomer to digital :p ). I will miss this film.

there are some guys in the UK i think that still manufacture polaroid film. need specialized machines and such.

i'm sure some hardcore fans of kodachrome will do the same within a few years...

Yes very sad news in some ways..but having worked with a Commerical film processor for many years I saw the ugly side of film processing from an environmental perspective. E6 processing was tame in comparison to the likes of Kodachrome, R3 and Cibachrome processing. Many of the chemicals were downright caustic. You sure couldn't argue with some of the amazing results though!
I suppose someone could argue that the environmental hit to manufacturing a digital camera is as bad or worse than film processing, but I'm not sure how.

Times do change and it is the loss of a great era. I'm lucky to have experienced it first hand.

I am not yet sure just how far we have really come.

I suppose that at the low end, the ~$200 digi compacts, the baby birthday party shooters are thrilled, but convenience is the only real advantage I see so far. The exorbitantly high cost of [near-throwaway 6-month product cycling] digital equipment offsets most if not all film and processing savings.


Where do you get the notion of 6-month product cycles?

I know some pros that still shoot with a Nikon D2X, which is nearly five years old. I (not a pro, though) shot a Nikon D70 for nearly 5 years until getting a used D300 this spring. I am likely to use the D300 for many, many years (and I still use the D70 as a backup). The lenses I have bought for the past 5 years are likely to serve me for decades.

The pace of R&D and new announcements is faster than before, but purchasing the latest and greatest is not mandatory.

Cheers,
T.

The only few Pro's I know that jump on the 6 month cycle are the ones shooting for the very large newspaper and magazines. The new Pro gear is not inexpensive and aside froms special deals that the big Papers may get, it seems everybody is looking at budgets these days....

Where do you get the notion of 6-month product cycles?

Uhh, because the manufactures do in fact have close to six-month product cycles for a good part of their camera lines; higher-end equipment is often [but not always] an exception.

I know some pros that still shoot with a Nikon D2X, which is nearly five years old. I (not a pro, though) shot a Nikon D70 for nearly 5 years until getting a used D300 this spring. I am likely to use the D300 for many, many years (and I still use the D70 as a backup). The lenses I have bought for the past 5 years are likely to serve me for decades.

The pace of R&D and new announcements is faster than before, but purchasing the latest and greatest is not mandatory.

You missed my point.

The point isn't whether or not this or that "pro" or that "everyone" has to or does upgrade every six months, the point is that digital technology has turned cameras from a durable good into a commodity like a toaster or a microwave.

If a D100 took a great picture five years ago it will take a great picture today but if you want to use those Nikkor AF lenses or that $350 SB-28/80DX that you bought for that D100 on your brand spanking new D5000 then you are SOL.

Nikon and the other manufactures [the ones still around] used to take pride in making their cameras and accessories interchangeable and reasonably future-proof but no longer.

Nikon could have easily made the D200, D300, D700, etc fully compatible with their older Speedlights without compromising the incorporation of newer technology but they didn't because Nikon can't make any additional money on a flash they sold you five years ago yet in the past they had no trouble [financially or technicaly] making the SB-10 compatible with the F2, FE, FM, FA, F3, etc.

The issue isn't that one has to upgrade every six months or so but Nikon, Canon, et al very much want you to and they now design their product lines accordingly, this is new, a product of the commoditization of digital photography but it didn’t used to be this way.

Good or bad, like it or not, this is a substantive change.

If a D100 took a great picture five years ago it will take a great picture today but if you want to use those Nikkor AF lenses or that $350 SB-28/80DX that you bought for that D100 on your brand spanking new D5000 then you are SOL.
only autofocus doesn't work. everything else does.

more importantly, the d5000 and the earlier d40/d40x/d60 are targeted at entry level users who don't generally have lenses or accessories. they are intended for first time dslr users, who typically will buy one or two lenses out of the 80 or so that will autofocus and that's it. they're much happier without the focus motor in the camera, giving them something smaller and lighter.

users who are upgrading from another nikon slr or who plan on buying a lot of lenses are likely to want a higher end body such as a d90 or d300, or possibly the d700 or d3.

Nikon and the other manufactures [the ones still around] used to take pride in making their cameras and accessories interchangeable and reasonably future-proof but no longer.

Nikon could have easily made the D200, D300, D700, etc fully compatible with their older Speedlights without compromising the incorporation of newer technology but they didn't because Nikon can't make any additional money on a flash they sold you five years ago yet in the past they had no trouble [financially or technicaly] making the SB-10 compatible with the F2, FE, FM, FA, F3, etc.
actually, no they couldn't have.

the older system was based on the flash reflecting off the film during the exposure. digital sensors have a different reflectivity than film and that makes using this method impossible to do.

pentax tried to use off the film flash ttl. their early dslrs worked with the older flashes, but only at low iso and it wasn't all that reliable.

they (and others) had to overhaul the system.

nikon first tried d-ttl followed by i-ttl, the latter of which is significantly more capable than the earlier flash units.

actually, no they couldn't have.

the older system was based on the flash reflecting off the film during the exposure. digital sensors have a different reflectivity than film and that makes using this method impossible to do.

By "older Speedlights" I was refering to the SB-28/80 DX vs. the SB-800 and on.

Nikon could have easily made post-D100 DSLRs/flashes both D-TTL and I-TTL capable.

Uhh, because the manufactures do in fact have close to six-month product cycles for a good part of their camera lines; higher-end equipment is often [but not always] an exception.


That is not really true. If you look at Nikon's DSLR product line-up, the cycle of equivalent products is roughly 18 to 24 months. For proof, see e.g. this chart (http://www.bythom.com/currentdslr.htm) by Thom Hogan.

It is not really relevant for a D40 user that the D3x is released. Nor is the D5000 relevant for a D3 user.

You missed my point.

The point isn't whether or not this or that "pro" or that "everyone" has to or does upgrade every six months, the point is that digital technology has turned cameras from a durable good into a commodity like a toaster or a microwave.

If a D100 took a great picture five years ago it will take a great picture today but if you want to use those Nikkor AF lenses or that $350 SB-28/80DX that you bought for that D100 on your brand spanking new D5000 then you are SOL.


Every single piece of Nikon kit I bought with or since my D70 (July 2004) is compatible with my D300. I fully (and realistically) expect them to be compatible with my next Nikon camera as well. How is that not durable?

Cheers,
T.