amateriat
We're all light!
So, Kodachrome's life-support finally got pulled, and we get to watch its last furtive writhings.
It hurts to watch. Really hurts. But I have to say I haven't used it much over the last decade. In fact, I've rarely used any slide film over the last fifteen years. And I place the blame squarely at the foot of digital imaging. My example might be the real reason Kodachrome has more or less been on life-support for the better part of a decade.
Mind you, I'm not talking about digital capture. I have so many issues regarding contemporary digital cameras that I don't see them becoming central to my imaging regimen any time in the near future, until and unless I see some fundamental changes in form factor and control interface matters. To my mind, there's little excuse for what's being trotted out as SOTA in pro digital cameras.
As far as the post-shoot aspect of digital imaging is concerned, however, I got on board pretty early, and loved it. My first film scanner, a second- or third-hand Nikon LS-10, was a revelation; yes, it took a seeming dog's age to scan one piece of negative or slide film, but once it was done, I was stone-cold sold on the process. Printing it out on my first-ever photo-grade inkjet printer (Epson SP 1200) pretty much sealed the deal. I saw the future, and it wasn't in the wet darkroom. (For me, that is...I don't regard the wet darkroom at all as moribund or without purpose, but it wasn't in the cards for me, for a number of practical reasons.)
Scanning so many negs and slides was educational in a number of ways, both expected and unexpected. One of the unexpected results was a re-evaluation of my attitude toward color negative film. When I started shooting more or less seriously in the early/mid 1970s, I never really got color neg film: you shot the stuff, sent it out to get developed, then got back your film, cut five-to-a-strip, and a bunch of small prints, some obviously better than others. Slides made much more sense then: I could take them out of their little box, stuff them in the Stack Loader of my Carousel projector, and live large on my screen (the big argument in those days was whether you preferred a lenticular screen surface over beaded...yes, people did argue over this stuff). You could tell if your shots really were sharp or not, and, with Kodachrome, you could have that near-3D experience if you more or less knew what you were doing. (I think 3D home projection isn't too far off–hell, they need something new to try and sell us, especially now–but I shudder to think of some of the results, especially once the adult-video industry get ahold of it...)
The problem with slide film, back then, was in the printing. If you wanted a nice 8x10" print of a particularly cool slide, it was an ordeal, almost always with mediocre results. This was where color neg film had a major advantage: there was no two-step dance involved in getting a print made (I'm referring to the time before Cibachrome/Ilfochrome and Kodak's Type R process became widespread), with the resulting generational loss in image quality. (I've done it myself in several pro labs, so I know that process, and it wasn't at all fun.) Slides ruled from the projector: negatives ruled from the living-room wall.
Digital scanning, and printing, turned all of this upside-down. Now, it didn't matter if the original image was a slide or neg: with a decent scanner and a modicum of care, you could extract a goodly amount of what was in that slide or neg, have it show up on your computer monitor, tweak it to your heart's content, then print it with great, if not breathtaking quality. With time and experience, you could even scan to a particular film type's strengths.
Working with slide film, this was a huge deal: Kodachrome was suddenly in a world of its own. I have several prints that, if I say so myself, are jaw-dropping in detail and palette, clearly unmistakable for any other emulsion. And, my better Ektachromes benefitted as well. (Yes, certain E6 emulsions have strengths of their own, and needn't apologize for not being Kodachrome.)
But it was the results with color neg film that took me by surprise. There was that dynamic range, with little fear of high-key blow-outs. There was exploiting the delicate palette of Portra 160 in a way I'd never imagined. There was getting low and mixed-light results from Fuji Pro 400/800 that I never dreamed of. Color neg film suddenly had serious mojo. And, I could scan it and print it like a pro. It wasn't hype any longer, it was real.
And so, slide film of all types fell out of favor. Kodachrome was first, largely because it always had to be sent off somewhere, even if that "somewhere" was just a cross the river (Fair Lawn, NJ), where it would return overnight. E6 could be dropped off at the lab early afternoon and be ready for pick-up by early evening. But now, I would drop color neg film off, tell the lab guys to simply soup it: no prints, no cutting of the roll, even. Simpler. faster, cheaper, and with minimum handling of the film, always a virtue.
This is how it's been for me for the last decade, which is about the last time I ever had a lab make prints/proofs for me. Color negative film (and its b/w chromogenic sidekick), has become the standard for me. Digital converts pointed out the fact that, relatively inexpensive as my workflow appeared to be, it was still more costly and labor-intensive than theirs; I replied that, while this was true, my methodology had at least one positive takeaway: a built-in storage medium that eliminated the hot-potato status of a digital file, which needs some sort of sturdy, if not quite permanent haven. No medium owns a claim on absolute permanence and stability, but I personally feel that my choice requires a bit less hand-wringing.
The post-production digital world, IMO, favors the negative image. The negative, in-camera, is more elastic, more tweakable, and more forgiving in fast-paced and brutal environs, and more likely to help one get the goods at the end of the day.
And, I hear it being shouted, Kodachrome is the the king of archival stability. What about that?
It means a lot. I worked for a multi-image production agency in the 1980s which had a large advertising agency approach it with the task of archiving their entire history of print advertising, which stretched back to the early 20th Century. After numerous meetings, we determined that the most archivally-stable material to record the printed works (most of them originals) was Kodachrome. Problem was, we needed to do the shooting on our large Forox 35mm process cameras, which normally used 100ft bulk rolls of film. (You think Kodak made their E6 films available in bulk only for skinflint hobbyists?). Supposedly, our calling up Rochester in 1984 and requesting a special order of bulk-loaded K64 was right up there with asking for a private audience with the Pope. The ad agency intervened on our behalf.
Within about three weeks, a medium-sized box arrived via private courier. Inside were about ten to fifteen 100ft rolls of Kodachrome 64. Possibly outside of the military, this was likely the only time one might have seem such a thing. I ended up doing a lot of shooting on the project.
So, I think I know Kodachrome reasonably well. And my heart sank at hearing today's (Monday's) news. And, like a lot of people, I'll be grabbing a bunch of rolls for some very specific purposes.
And then, I'll move on, grabbing even more rolls of Portra and BW400CN, among a few specific others. The death of Kodachrome is a biggie, but it's not the death of film, or, at least, certainly not yet. Kodak can no longer afford to be terribly sentimental, so they have to pick and choose. ("We'll always have Tri-X, schweetheart"). It's the gestalt of the process of working with film that's counted to me a bit more than working with a specific film, even though I've clearly liked some films more than others (let's just say I never sent a mash note to GAF, for example). And, I have several films I've gotten to know and love, which will likely see out the bulk of my photographing days.
Yeah, I wish Kodachrome would still be made beyond this year. I also wish Schwinn was still making Paramount bicycles. Right here, in the US of A*.
- Barrett
*Yeah, yeah, there's Waterford, but you grok my drift, right?
It hurts to watch. Really hurts. But I have to say I haven't used it much over the last decade. In fact, I've rarely used any slide film over the last fifteen years. And I place the blame squarely at the foot of digital imaging. My example might be the real reason Kodachrome has more or less been on life-support for the better part of a decade.
Mind you, I'm not talking about digital capture. I have so many issues regarding contemporary digital cameras that I don't see them becoming central to my imaging regimen any time in the near future, until and unless I see some fundamental changes in form factor and control interface matters. To my mind, there's little excuse for what's being trotted out as SOTA in pro digital cameras.
As far as the post-shoot aspect of digital imaging is concerned, however, I got on board pretty early, and loved it. My first film scanner, a second- or third-hand Nikon LS-10, was a revelation; yes, it took a seeming dog's age to scan one piece of negative or slide film, but once it was done, I was stone-cold sold on the process. Printing it out on my first-ever photo-grade inkjet printer (Epson SP 1200) pretty much sealed the deal. I saw the future, and it wasn't in the wet darkroom. (For me, that is...I don't regard the wet darkroom at all as moribund or without purpose, but it wasn't in the cards for me, for a number of practical reasons.)
Scanning so many negs and slides was educational in a number of ways, both expected and unexpected. One of the unexpected results was a re-evaluation of my attitude toward color negative film. When I started shooting more or less seriously in the early/mid 1970s, I never really got color neg film: you shot the stuff, sent it out to get developed, then got back your film, cut five-to-a-strip, and a bunch of small prints, some obviously better than others. Slides made much more sense then: I could take them out of their little box, stuff them in the Stack Loader of my Carousel projector, and live large on my screen (the big argument in those days was whether you preferred a lenticular screen surface over beaded...yes, people did argue over this stuff). You could tell if your shots really were sharp or not, and, with Kodachrome, you could have that near-3D experience if you more or less knew what you were doing. (I think 3D home projection isn't too far off–hell, they need something new to try and sell us, especially now–but I shudder to think of some of the results, especially once the adult-video industry get ahold of it...)
The problem with slide film, back then, was in the printing. If you wanted a nice 8x10" print of a particularly cool slide, it was an ordeal, almost always with mediocre results. This was where color neg film had a major advantage: there was no two-step dance involved in getting a print made (I'm referring to the time before Cibachrome/Ilfochrome and Kodak's Type R process became widespread), with the resulting generational loss in image quality. (I've done it myself in several pro labs, so I know that process, and it wasn't at all fun.) Slides ruled from the projector: negatives ruled from the living-room wall.
Digital scanning, and printing, turned all of this upside-down. Now, it didn't matter if the original image was a slide or neg: with a decent scanner and a modicum of care, you could extract a goodly amount of what was in that slide or neg, have it show up on your computer monitor, tweak it to your heart's content, then print it with great, if not breathtaking quality. With time and experience, you could even scan to a particular film type's strengths.
Working with slide film, this was a huge deal: Kodachrome was suddenly in a world of its own. I have several prints that, if I say so myself, are jaw-dropping in detail and palette, clearly unmistakable for any other emulsion. And, my better Ektachromes benefitted as well. (Yes, certain E6 emulsions have strengths of their own, and needn't apologize for not being Kodachrome.)
But it was the results with color neg film that took me by surprise. There was that dynamic range, with little fear of high-key blow-outs. There was exploiting the delicate palette of Portra 160 in a way I'd never imagined. There was getting low and mixed-light results from Fuji Pro 400/800 that I never dreamed of. Color neg film suddenly had serious mojo. And, I could scan it and print it like a pro. It wasn't hype any longer, it was real.
And so, slide film of all types fell out of favor. Kodachrome was first, largely because it always had to be sent off somewhere, even if that "somewhere" was just a cross the river (Fair Lawn, NJ), where it would return overnight. E6 could be dropped off at the lab early afternoon and be ready for pick-up by early evening. But now, I would drop color neg film off, tell the lab guys to simply soup it: no prints, no cutting of the roll, even. Simpler. faster, cheaper, and with minimum handling of the film, always a virtue.
This is how it's been for me for the last decade, which is about the last time I ever had a lab make prints/proofs for me. Color negative film (and its b/w chromogenic sidekick), has become the standard for me. Digital converts pointed out the fact that, relatively inexpensive as my workflow appeared to be, it was still more costly and labor-intensive than theirs; I replied that, while this was true, my methodology had at least one positive takeaway: a built-in storage medium that eliminated the hot-potato status of a digital file, which needs some sort of sturdy, if not quite permanent haven. No medium owns a claim on absolute permanence and stability, but I personally feel that my choice requires a bit less hand-wringing.
The post-production digital world, IMO, favors the negative image. The negative, in-camera, is more elastic, more tweakable, and more forgiving in fast-paced and brutal environs, and more likely to help one get the goods at the end of the day.
And, I hear it being shouted, Kodachrome is the the king of archival stability. What about that?
It means a lot. I worked for a multi-image production agency in the 1980s which had a large advertising agency approach it with the task of archiving their entire history of print advertising, which stretched back to the early 20th Century. After numerous meetings, we determined that the most archivally-stable material to record the printed works (most of them originals) was Kodachrome. Problem was, we needed to do the shooting on our large Forox 35mm process cameras, which normally used 100ft bulk rolls of film. (You think Kodak made their E6 films available in bulk only for skinflint hobbyists?). Supposedly, our calling up Rochester in 1984 and requesting a special order of bulk-loaded K64 was right up there with asking for a private audience with the Pope. The ad agency intervened on our behalf.
Within about three weeks, a medium-sized box arrived via private courier. Inside were about ten to fifteen 100ft rolls of Kodachrome 64. Possibly outside of the military, this was likely the only time one might have seem such a thing. I ended up doing a lot of shooting on the project.
So, I think I know Kodachrome reasonably well. And my heart sank at hearing today's (Monday's) news. And, like a lot of people, I'll be grabbing a bunch of rolls for some very specific purposes.
And then, I'll move on, grabbing even more rolls of Portra and BW400CN, among a few specific others. The death of Kodachrome is a biggie, but it's not the death of film, or, at least, certainly not yet. Kodak can no longer afford to be terribly sentimental, so they have to pick and choose. ("We'll always have Tri-X, schweetheart"). It's the gestalt of the process of working with film that's counted to me a bit more than working with a specific film, even though I've clearly liked some films more than others (let's just say I never sent a mash note to GAF, for example). And, I have several films I've gotten to know and love, which will likely see out the bulk of my photographing days.
Yeah, I wish Kodachrome would still be made beyond this year. I also wish Schwinn was still making Paramount bicycles. Right here, in the US of A*.
- Barrett
*Yeah, yeah, there's Waterford, but you grok my drift, right?
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
literiter
Well-known
Lewis Carol thought of us when he wrote the Walrus and the Carpenter. On such short notice this is the only quote I could find that approximated the issue.
"After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'
'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
'You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none --
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one."
The loss of Kodachrome is not Kodak's fault other than they did not seem to encourage it's use. We simply didn't use the stuff, we just let it go. My kodachromes from the 60s 70s and 80s are still unchanged, but my E6 stuff has in many cases gone magenta and now we have something even more furtive, but really easy to use.
Long live nothin'
"After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'
'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
'You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none --
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one."
The loss of Kodachrome is not Kodak's fault other than they did not seem to encourage it's use. We simply didn't use the stuff, we just let it go. My kodachromes from the 60s 70s and 80s are still unchanged, but my E6 stuff has in many cases gone magenta and now we have something even more furtive, but really easy to use.
Long live nothin'
Chris101
summicronia
Hey Barrett, your post is way too long for someone of my limited attention span to actually read, but if I may respond... It's been a long time that I've used Kodachrome as well. It was my first film however, so of course I have some feelings. That Fuji stuff will never fill it's shoes, especially as I use digital photography for all my color work. But I still use film for Black and White though. There are plenty of aternatives, but I still prefer the Kodak original, Trix for that.
Well, I used to prefer Kodak's HIE, but they discontinued that.
It's all inevitable, huh.
Well, I used to prefer Kodak's HIE, but they discontinued that.
It's all inevitable, huh.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Barrett,
Well my friend, I think you summed it up so well that I have nothing to add, really.
I will note that I too worked in a lab and we occasionally had to do an interneg. Even from an E6 4x5 chrome the results were quite unsatisfactory. I remember my absolute, ecstatic joy of my first Ciba 8x10 print from a K25 slide. It was hell getting the original Ciba to work just right, but when you did so with an image that was good from a photographic viewpoint, you felt almost like calling it quits and saying "Well, I'm done."
I have seen a fair number of very high quality, perfectly printed and very large digital colour prints at Eastman House. None of them have moved me like a Kodachrome/Ciba print.
Well my friend, I think you summed it up so well that I have nothing to add, really.
I will note that I too worked in a lab and we occasionally had to do an interneg. Even from an E6 4x5 chrome the results were quite unsatisfactory. I remember my absolute, ecstatic joy of my first Ciba 8x10 print from a K25 slide. It was hell getting the original Ciba to work just right, but when you did so with an image that was good from a photographic viewpoint, you felt almost like calling it quits and saying "Well, I'm done."
I have seen a fair number of very high quality, perfectly printed and very large digital colour prints at Eastman House. None of them have moved me like a Kodachrome/Ciba print.
__hh
Well-known
And I thought I was the only illiterate and lazy person here 
Kodachrome is dead, long live Velvia & TriX
Kodachrome is dead, long live Velvia & TriX
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I remember seeing a bunch of big dye transfer prints in the late sixties, each about 3 X 4.5 feet. The images were by Pete Turner and shot on Kodachrome. Beautiful!
Does anybody still do dye transfer printing?
Does anybody still do dye transfer printing?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Kodak stopped making the Matrix film for the dye transfer process (for the separations) in 1994. I think there are a few people that bought a lot and put it in in freezers, but that, I'm sure, is pretty much gone, now.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Ctein, over on TheOnlinePhotographer, still does dye transfer prints. Recently he did a subscription-based run of prints.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Yes. He is one of the ones who spent a fortune buying up the Matrix film when Kodak stopped making it in '94. Didn't know if he had any left or not.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
There's something to be said for the "archival qualities" of Kodachrome (and other time-proven media)....
I like old stuff besides cameras, especially "talking machines" and records...
A few years ago, I was in the right place at the right time , and acquired a very nice, unrestored Victrola VV-XVI (also known as the "L-door" Victrola, because the record cabinet doors have a dogleg that brought them up along-side the doors for the speaker horn), complete with its original sales slip from "John Wanamaker & Sons, Philadelphia" from 1909, written up for "Victrola and records"....
Well, the records amazed me almost as much as the machine itself: most of them were apparently the ones orignally sold with the machine, and some look as though they've NEVER been played... most of thoose that had been played are "like new".
Aside from freshening the lubricants in the spring-wound motor, I had to do nothing to the machine, and the records sound amazingly clear.... apparently most of the 78's I've been listening to all my life are worn-out!
All of which is to say, that while acoustic recording technology had/has its limitations, the recording technology and play-back equipment are straight-forward enough that 100, 500, 1,000 years from now, future beings will probably be able to resurrect survivng talking machines and make them "go".... (Heck, they've already proven themselves for over 130 years, if we go back to Edison's patent in 1879...)
I wonder if digital info will be so enduring ?
One of the greatest qualities of a Kodachrome slide is that it needs to other "retrieval device" to enable someone to "read the data"... just hold it up to the light....
LF
( PS: I believe the Library of Congress still backs-up certain important recordings on acoustic discs / Edison cylinders...)
I like old stuff besides cameras, especially "talking machines" and records...
A few years ago, I was in the right place at the right time , and acquired a very nice, unrestored Victrola VV-XVI (also known as the "L-door" Victrola, because the record cabinet doors have a dogleg that brought them up along-side the doors for the speaker horn), complete with its original sales slip from "John Wanamaker & Sons, Philadelphia" from 1909, written up for "Victrola and records"....
Well, the records amazed me almost as much as the machine itself: most of them were apparently the ones orignally sold with the machine, and some look as though they've NEVER been played... most of thoose that had been played are "like new".
Aside from freshening the lubricants in the spring-wound motor, I had to do nothing to the machine, and the records sound amazingly clear.... apparently most of the 78's I've been listening to all my life are worn-out!
All of which is to say, that while acoustic recording technology had/has its limitations, the recording technology and play-back equipment are straight-forward enough that 100, 500, 1,000 years from now, future beings will probably be able to resurrect survivng talking machines and make them "go".... (Heck, they've already proven themselves for over 130 years, if we go back to Edison's patent in 1879...)
I wonder if digital info will be so enduring ?
One of the greatest qualities of a Kodachrome slide is that it needs to other "retrieval device" to enable someone to "read the data"... just hold it up to the light....
LF
( PS: I believe the Library of Congress still backs-up certain important recordings on acoustic discs / Edison cylinders...)
Last edited:
mwooten
light user
Well said Barrett. Well said.
bmattock
Veteran
In a word, yes.
amateriat
We're all light!
In fact, depending on who's work you're looking at, some of it already is. Like anything else, it's about what you put into the work. Many don't bother, however.
- Barrett
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I killed Kodachrome.
So did other photo enthusiasts, like me, who chose not to regularly use the film during the last several decades. I started out my photography hobby shooting K-64 in the late 1970s, but being in the US Navy found E-6 processing more convenient. Then I discovered B/W in the mid/late 1980s, and have focused on that every since.
I don't have a slide projector, and hence ended up not seeing the point of shooting trasparency film, especially once digital cameras with good image quality and affordable prices started appearing. Guess I'm a print and electronic image person. I know about Kodachrome's legendary archivability, but apparently that wasn't enough to convince me to keep shooting the stuff.
Sorry, everyone.
~Joe
So did other photo enthusiasts, like me, who chose not to regularly use the film during the last several decades. I started out my photography hobby shooting K-64 in the late 1970s, but being in the US Navy found E-6 processing more convenient. Then I discovered B/W in the mid/late 1980s, and have focused on that every since.
I don't have a slide projector, and hence ended up not seeing the point of shooting trasparency film, especially once digital cameras with good image quality and affordable prices started appearing. Guess I'm a print and electronic image person. I know about Kodachrome's legendary archivability, but apparently that wasn't enough to convince me to keep shooting the stuff.
Sorry, everyone.
~Joe
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Kodachrome was great because it was the only way to get fine grained, colorful images at the time. The color negative film of the time was grainy, dull and unstable compared to Kodachrome. Eventually, though, fine grain, nicely saturated color negative films were developed and the cheap processing they enabled made them the obvious choice for most folks.
Magazines used slides exclusively much longer because of the process of making color separations. Eventually, even that ended, and negative film, with it wider exposure latitude won out...and then digital was the final nail in Kodachromes coffin.
Magazines used slides exclusively much longer because of the process of making color separations. Eventually, even that ended, and negative film, with it wider exposure latitude won out...and then digital was the final nail in Kodachromes coffin.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Joe: Kodachrome on a proper light table viewed through a proper loup is a lnother world. Setting up the projector was not an absolute.