What if digital cameras hadn't been invented...

[Archiver]

When I look at my actual film images, I don't really shoot people, I tend to shoot landscapes and general scenes. But if digital didn't exist, I'd have to shoot people with film.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/albums/72157600064251818

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/albums/72157600064016993

I like to think that if digital photography had not been invented, my family photos would look like Lars Wastfelt's images. He uses a Zeiss Ikon with Zeiss 25 and 35.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawa/

Perhaps this will prompt me to shoot people with film!

 

[HHPhoto]

Hmmm...would Kodachrome still have survived?

No, certainly not.
Because it wasn't digital imaging what caused its end, but the much much better E6 process.
E6 surpassed Kodachrome in all aspects.

During the 90ies the film demand was strongly increasing, by about 40% over the whole decade.
But at that time the demand for Kodachrome was significantly decreasing, because E6 films, mainly the Fujichromes which had become market leader in the 90ies, surpassed Kodachrome in all quality parameters: Better sharpness, better resolution, finer grain, better color accuracy, better pull- and push capabilities, better color stability under light (E6 chrome can be projected several thousands times without fading, but Kodachromes are fading very fast when exposed to light).

And E6 has been also much cheaper and much more convenient than Kodachrome: It can be processed at any normal lab, even very easily at home at negligible costs.

I stopped using Kodachrome in the 90ies because E6 had surpassed it in all relevant parameters.

And most of the reversal film shooter market did the same, some earlier, some a bit later.
The market had decided. Kodak then stopped R&D for Kodachrome, concentrating completely on E6. And some years later the process of closing the international Kodachrome labs started, too.

Cheers, Jan