End of some photographic history

<p>One would have to assume that many of the "Old Timers" that frequent the forum, Kodachrome was a much used and loved film. It was my film of choice for so many situations in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. My usage dwindled as processing became so rare. With Dwaynes in Kansas processing ending, a wonderful era in photographic history has ended. Time and technology marches on.</p>

<p>Well, I have been into photography for about 40 years and have never shot a roll of Kodachrome believe it or not. In fact, I don't believe I've ever shot slides. Aside from the commercial/educational use of slides I've never understood the need for slides. I have always shot black and white or color film. I can understand the need for photos (not prints, photos) but slides need a slide projector and all that to see them and there is validity to the usual gag of everyone leaving the room when someone offers to show their vacation slides. Aside from that, I do feel something is gone from photography now that Kodachrome is gone.</p>

<p>Kodachrome 64 was my film of choice in the 1980s, but I doubt if I've shot one roll in the last two decades. </p>

<p>It was great film, but forgive me, I can't understand all the fascination with its demise, and the goofy orgy of last-minute rolls being FedExed to Dwayne's. There was no market for Kodachrome. It was time to go, just like Smith-Corona had to go, and Polaroid had to go.</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>If you've never shot slides, you're missing a whole lot. I shoot them quite often, and my projector hasn't even had a good bulb in it for several years now. Projecting on the usual Kodak Carousel is really a pretty lousy way to view them.</p>

<p>The beauty of slides is that they're a "what you see is what you get" medium. Most photographers who shoot slides in a big way use a light box and loupe to view them. The first time you look at a good, original slide this way, you'll be hooked.</p>

<p>If you're going to scan and print, slides are a great choice because you have a convenient color reference in the slide itself.</p>

<p>Or, for more traditional printing, there's always Cibachrome, which is an archival reversal color printing process.</p>

<p>I am am big fan of slides and shot Agfa and Kodachrome in the 1980s. However, once Fuji developed Velvia (about 1990) I switched and never looked back. We may have lost Kodachrome but quite frankly I find Velvia to be a much better film - and fortunately Fuji re-introduced it.</p>

 

<p>Been an active shooter since 1974 and I think in all that time I maybe shot less then 20 rolls of Kodachrome and the majority of my shooting since high school has been slides. First cause it was the only color I could do myself and then later for publication and finally for the archivability of slides over prints.<br>

I was from the get go an Ektachrome kind of guy always looking for more and more speed to make up for the longer and longer lenses I was using.<br>

During my 14 years as a knifemaker the ability of slides to be used in publications meant I got a lot more exposure (sorry for the pun LOL) for my work. And I got credit for the photo's as well.</p>

<p>I was way more upset at the loss of Tech pan then Kodachrome. Nothing shows the fine grain structure of finish on a hand made knife like Tech pan in Tech pan developer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two films that deserved a better fate - Tech pan and Verichrome Pan. As much as some people get all worked up about losing Kodachrome, I could not. For a process that was over 75 years old, it had its heyday a long time ago. I shot my share of it, but other films certainly were more friendly. I think people are more nostalgic about than anything else, because it has been drummed into our heads that Kodachrome was the film that captured America. I'm waiting now for someone to start asking on another thread where they can get the K-64 developed that they found in the back of the fridge... </p>

<p>Of course there are now more vibrant films than Kodachrome available for use. Those that have replaced Kodachrome have a different "look" .. I believe the nostalgia in Kodachrome is merely the fact that if you have any slides inherited from family members there is a good chance that some of them were shot on Kodachrome and they probably look as good today as when they were processed. </p>

<p>I have about 300 slides from Thule Greenland that my father shot and they are quite stunning (circa 1960); and I have slides I've shot within the last 10 years that have already faded. And then, there are family photos of our travels and my childhood on Kodachrome which still look great .. so, despite Kodachromes shortcomings in comparison to modern film .. it was a unique chemistry.</p>

<p>About 3 years ago I shot Kodachrome and my digital camera side by side in Yosemite National Park .. I rushed to get the Kodachrome, two rolls to Dwaynes before they shut down the processing .. almost forgot about those rolls of Kodachrome in the refrigerator .. I have to tell you I was quite surprised this week to get those slides just before Christmas day and viewed them under a loupe on the light table .. I've been shooting a lot of digital the last few years, but my slides proved once again that the convenience of digital photography has some limitations .. </p>

<p>For those reading this and wondering about shooting slides, I suggest you give it a try and see what you're missing. I'm not suggesting it replace your print film or digital work, but one really needs to experience the richness in color, the depth of things in the photo and definition that slides produce .. and if you can see a difference, then consider it in medium and large format .. sort of puts the experience in perspective.</p>

<p>Kodachrome has had a long run, as such it is a part of history for most photographers. I believe I may be one of the few who will miss it and think I should have shot more of it. I, of course do like Velvia and Astia .. but they sing a different song..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like it, love it, hate it, don't care.......whatever......</p>

<p>I hate to see any film die.</p>

<p>Now Verichrome Pan that is hard for me to do without. Never liked TMax or even Tri-X as much as Verichrome.</p>

<p>Now that you mention it that reminds me I have a big professional slide copying machine here that a studio sold me. Can't recall the name but it is green and has these square film interchangable magazines. I only bought it for some unrelated lenses that came with it. Now I have to figure what to do with it. It is about the size of an enlarger.</p>

<p>Lets just be thankful that Kodak introduced this breakthrough film back during the Great Depression and it inspired numerous companies to match or better it in the following decades.You must ask yourself "what if this great film had never come to market in the first place".The color films that followed soon after were terrible and it took decades for the others to catch up.It was truly groundbreaking technology that changed photography forever.<br>

This would be like badmouthing the original F1 of 1971 ( has anyone remembered this year marks fourty years of FD?) as garbage in comparison to the latest (and probably last) great film camera from Canon the EOS 1V.There would be no EOS 1V if the original F1 had never been developed in the first place.<br>

Yes,the E6 of today on a light table under a good loupe is still as good as it gets.It all started with Kodachrome.My only hope is that E6 does not go the way of Kodachrome in the future due to lack of interest or appreciation.</p>

 

<p>Kodachrome made a guy grateful for the original Canon F-1's metering accuracy and selectivity...a magical combination. My friends and I shot K25 and 64 almost exclusively starting in the mid-70s, we loved its saturation and fine grain. Yellow cardboard boxes were everywhere, and who's got the loupe?<br /> Kodachrome's slow ASA mandated improvements of our technique that still remain useful for available light photography, or panning racing machines at speed.<br /> Kodachrome is the happy memory that doesn't fade with time.</p>

<p>No film is a perfect reproduction of life, but Kodachrome made life look like we wanted it to look. The best quality is it's stability and longevity.</p>

<p>Anyone who dismisses slide films just doesn't get it. Chromes have a look that make them feel alive and in comparison, print films look dull and lifeless. I'm even surprised that the scans of my recent chromes (from Dwayne's) look different than straight digital photos.</p>

<p>Ed</p><div></div>

<p>In the movie business they start to shoot digital but for reference they shoot negative. The timer is comparing two images matching digital to the film look. I listened to the interview with top cinematographers just few days ago. So this is the way to go, probably.</p>

<p>I am in the process of scanning a selection from the many thousands of Kodachrome slides that I shot, beginning in about 1960 with my Canon IVSB, then Canonflex, then F1, then T90. Although my few old Ektachrome slides have faded, the Kodachrome slides look as good as new. While my digital photo files will probably be unreadable in another 50 years, the Kodachrome slides may well endure that long (presuming that my heirs have not thrown them out decades earlier).</p>

<p>"To give us the greens of summer,<br /> Makes you think all the world's a sunny day"<br>

Thank you Paul Simon, and thank you Eastman Kodak!</p><div></div>

<p>Casmalia, California </p><div></div>

<p>Laguna Seca</p><div></div>

<p>Sundown</p><div></div>

<p>Flight deck, '82</p><div></div>

<p>Kodachrome 64. Autofocus, whuzzat?</p><div></div>

<p>Afterburner</p><div></div>

<p>F-14</p><div></div>

<p>500KV</p><div></div>

<p>Point Reyes lighthouse</p><div></div>