Kodachrome Forever

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2004/05/07/magazine/20040509PORT_SLID

ESHOW_1.htm

 

An interesting group of Kodachromes shot in the late 1930's depicting

some aspects of the Great Depression. Keep in mind that the first

Kodachrome was about ASA (ISO) 8. That's EIGHT, not a typo. The color

wasn't all that accurate but the dyes were, and are, extremely

stable. How many digital images will survive? The present will be

depicted in the future more from our Tri-X shots than either E6, C41

or digital color.

Page Not Found

 

 

The page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

 

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication.

 

Articles back to 1851 are available through our New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present. For more information or to start searching, please visit our Archive page.

 

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

 

# E-Mail Update readers: If the article links in your mailing do not work, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the mailings. Please switch to the Text Version.

I just got a processed roll of K25 back from the lab (no scans yet). The brilliance of the colors is amazing - of course using an APO-Telyt helps. There are a lot of good slide films but something in my psyche tells me I haven't photographed an animal well until it's on Kodachrome. I'm still selling photos made with Kodachrome that are 30 or more years old.

I used the link to Annabel Clark--Redgrave slide show a few threads below and this was one of the links on this page.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html

During my trip to Isleboro on May 1st I used Kodachrome 64. The slides from it were really great from my personal perspective. They were mostly family or scenic shots but the overall quality of the slide was comforting. The color saturation was higher than I expected but I still enjoyed the results.

<P>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2345801&size=lg">Pendleton Point</a>

 

<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2345578&size=lg">Playground</a>

I still have a lot of Kodachromes of this era and most of them have held up quite well. The speed was Weston 8, the equivalent of ASA/ISO 10. Ansco Color (and Anscochromes) had poor resistence to fading. The Ektachromes were not much better. I wish that I had shot all Kodachromes!

Don't have anymore inside to the film but those images are stunning. Thanks, Al.

And those digital colors might still be okay, only if we can keep the files intact. :->>

Al,

 

I saw the images and they certainly had a nice look to them. But if you really want to talk stable, how about carbro-color prints. Stuff like Paul Outerbridge did?

 

BTW, from now on, when slaming contemporary technology, just write "DD" for digital dig. :>)

I have been using Kodachrome for over 30 years, starting with Kodachrome II, ASA 25, and Kodachrome X, ASA 64. Those old slides still look good. This one, K64, was taken this year in March. I'd hate to see it go away.<div></div>

<I>The present will be depicted in the future more from our Tri-X shots than either E6, C41 or digital color.</i><P>Just as long as we use Leica's to take those images, right?<P> I've got boxes of Kodachrome that hasn't done so well over the years because that was about the time Q/C started to go downhill for the product, yet my drum scans from 10 years ago look just as good as the day they were made. Good old faded Kodachrome......boy, that stuff is fun to scan. No color or depth really, just lots of contrast. Kind of like amatuer print film.<P>My personal view is that some feel boring photography is suddenly made intereresting and superior to digital if we make up some nostalgia about it. If that's not the poster child for Kodachrome, I don't know what is. The better other photographers become and the stronger non film based photography gets, the more blatant the claims from the other sector.

1�s and 0�s can theoretically last for eternity, they don�t fade either.

Jon:

 

The link works fine, you just have to remove the space between SLID and ESHOW

Great pictures Al. (remove space in SLID ESHOW). How many digital images will survive?

Probably more than we care to look at. But I wouldn't trust a great photo to digital. For

that you need Kodachrome.

<i>[snicker]</i> This thread reminds me of a gathering of 90-year-olds reminiscing about "the good old days."

 

<p>As Kodachrome QC continues to slip and more labs discontinue K14 process altogether (along with E6 and B&W), no doubt the reminiscing will become more vocal, frequent, even desperate. Enjoy it while you still can.

I cannot get the link without registering online with all my personal details to NY times.

 

I do not want to open myself up to a lifetime of NYT related spam so can someone put a proper link in here please?

 

Thanks. (Yes I did remove the space in the middle of SLID ESHOW)

Al Feng,

 

"Good old days"? Hell, way back when, I had to walk uphill going to AND from school. And, remember when flash powder used to set your hair on fire? And, and...nothing is more stable than those glass negs...as long as you don't drop em'. And, and, and...nothing was tougher than street photography with an 80 pound Deardorff and tripod. But how about those crisp 5 1/x 6 negs?

I have 1's and 0's from two years ago tha I couldn't look at until I bought an auxiliary floppy drive for my new computer. Whether magnetic media rots as fast as CD-ROM's remains to be seen. Maybe if we just print out the 1's and 0's future generations will be able to read them like Morse code and appreciate them as art.

The sadness of digitale is because rather than add to analog this wonderful new photography we instead by economics are losing one after another the analog film and cameras. My American colleague describes as throwing away the baby in his bath water.

Digital will last forever, at least I hope so.

I have a pristine Kodachrome of my great grandparents on their 50th wedding anniversary in 1941. I also have swell Kodachrome I shot 15-20 years ago- 35mm and 120. Then again, I have color print film I shot 20 years ago that prints perfectly.

 

I stopped shooting Kodachrome (and other slide films) years ago because:

 

1. Ametuer Kodachrome often shot too red- particularly flesh tones. Pro Kodachrome was and is better, but cost too much (e.g. the current price of $11.50 per roll for PKR 36).

 

2. 20 years ago, the number of labs in the midsection of the U.S. from Canada to Mexico started dwindling. This forced me to use Kodak labs, which, even 20 years ago were well on their way towards being the whore's end of the business.

 

Today, the few people I know who are still shooting slides have long since switched to pro Fujichrome. This has been a response to Kodak's Kodachrome processing being both pricey and crappy.

 

3. My endgame is prints. Color negative film has a longer tonal scale that slide film, I find it to have better resolution and, even now, it is harder to find a lab that prints slides well, as opposed to color negs.

 

4. 40 year-old Kodachromes may still be in great shape. However, as has been noted above, I would bet that Kodachrome shot and processed today will start to deteriorate within 20 years. The quality of the processing has gone waaaaaay downhill.

 

This having been said, I'll either shoot digital or shoot color negs and scan them. As has been noted in other posts, digital libraries will have to be maintained and resaved from time to time. However, if this is done, there will be zero deterioration of digital images.

 

Folks are welcome to bemoan the demise of Kodachrome. That won't forestall it.

 

Currently, for the whole middle section of the U.S., there is only one Kodachrome line I know of- Kodak, Minneapolis. I predict that within five years, there won't be more than one Kodachrome lab in the entire U.S. I also predict that Kodak will stop producing Kodachrome altogether within 7-8 years.

I've never quite known why, but Kodachrome and Leica glass seem particularly suited to each other. Kodachrome (I), like Kodachrome 25 was overly contrasty, whereas Kodachrome II was IMO the best color film ever made. Printing Dye Transfer and Cibachrome from it was a real pleasure. I am now down to a single brick of PMK (professional Kocachrome 25) in my freezer, and hope they don't discontinue developing services before I finish using it up.

Al:

 

Funny you should post this now. I am going to be in DC this week, and then spend a day in Gettysburg and Eisenhower's farm. I was going to shoot a roll of Kodachrome, which I haven't used in maybe 20 years. Do you or anyone have an opinion as to Kodachrome vs. Ecktachrome for generally outdoor scenic shots?

 

BTW, the local store does NOT refrigerate Kodachrome. Any special reeason?

 

Thanks.

<i>"Just as long as we use Leica's to take those images, right?"</i><p>Yep, it's the camera I use. And your point?

Al, I have over 70 Kodak 140 trays full of slides; most of them are Kodacrome. I have about 12 trays of my Dad's slides; 99% Kodachrome. And I have about 5 trays of my Grandfather's slides; 95% Kodachrome. They all look good today! The E4 stuff I shot in the late 70's has all faded.

 

In 2002 my wife & I went to Portugal & Spain. We shot the last 12 rolls of K25 that we had. Sorry to see it go.

 

On Sunday we leave on a cruise. We are taking 10 rolls of K64 (and a few rolls of Provira 400).

 

I fear that K64 is doomed and within 5 years will be gone.

 

Time to load up the freezer I guess.