# Kodachrome R.I.P.



## bgw

Kodak is finally stopping production of Kodachrome. 

Kodachome, for those of us old enough to remember, was a wonderful film. Vivid was the best word to describe it.

I have used Kodachrome in the last year. It still is wonderful stuff. Has wonderful grain and outperforms almost any digital camera.



> Mama don't take my Kodachrome away


 ~ Paul Simon


----------



## johnb1

*the end of an era*

Yep, vivid is right. As I type this, I'm looking at slides from 1967, the year I was born, or even earlier, and they look pretty clear. Soon they'll all be done and on a cd-I hope

John B


----------



## bgw

I've got to scan in what I think is over 8000 slides. How are you handling them (what scanner, software etc.)?


----------



## screature

Try Fuji Velvia. If you liked Kodachrome you should love Velvia.


----------



## ScanMan

There are some nice chrome looks, but Kodachrome is/was king. It also ages well and because of the stringent developing requirements, only rarely suffered from poor processing. There's just so much incredible "body" in those things.

bgw, for 8,000 slides, I strongly suggest a Nikon 5000 w/Vuescan. Or if you're feeling more serious, a 9000 with its superior ICE Advanced Pro, which does a slightly better job on Kodachromes specifically. A dedicated film scanner is MUCH faster than a flatbed. 

The Nikons hold their value. Dump it on CL when you're through.


----------



## screature

All a matter of taste (and technical specifications). Pros such as Ken Rockwell don't feel that way at all:

*Kodachrome no more*

_Kodak today announced that it's given up on Kodachrome after 74 years.

It's not Kodak's fault; it's ours.

Kodak also posted a tribute to Kodachrome.

Everything else you read online are simply re-writes of these postings from Kodak.

*I gave up on Kodachrome in 1990 when I tried my first roll of Fuji Velvia, which I immediately started shooting and still shoot to this day.*

Why? Because Velvia gives us those nice, bright colors far better than Kodachrome ever did. My first roll of Velvia gave me the look I had always sought, but never gotten, from Kodachrome.

Kodachrome has color cross-over problems in highlights that give us the greens of summer — but in what should be our puffy white clouds! With Velvia, all the world sees our sunny day as it should be.

Look at the characteristic curves in the tech data, page 3: the green curve drops too fast and hits the blue curve at the bottom, meaning whites shift towards green just before they wash out completely to white. I don't know about you, but Fuji films give us white highlights, not greenish ones.

These color shifts were acceptable in 1935, but not in 1990. Kodachrome was the standard in professional color photography through the 1980s because printers ("color separators") knew how to correct for this and eliminate the problem in print, but guys like me who projected their slides were, and still are, always stuck with slightly green-fringed highlights.

Kodachrome also started to develop problems with pinholes in the shadows in the late 1980s, so when Velvia came out, we all upgraded immediately. _


----------



## Niteshooter

Kodachrome was a black and white film in which the colour was injected into the emulsion. Add to this that the process is pretty unfriendly to the environment so I can see Kodak killing it. Plus the fact folks aren't buying it.....

Good story here, Kodak Kills Kodachrome Film

Photographers choose their film based on the films characteristics. Always been the case IMHO.

When I used to use film if shot in Europe especially in the southern parts I preferred to shoot Agfa colour films, here I prefer Fuji. Fall colours = Kodachrome or southwestern US such as New Mexico.

I can recall travelling to Japan in the spring to photograph Cherry Blossoms and also to dash into Yodobashi Camera to buy 120 Infrared film. It's only made once a year by Sakura and is rare as heck.

Always based my film purchases on where I was shooting, when, conditions and type of subject(s). Just as a mechanic chooses the correct tools for the job.

Digital has pretty much tossed a spanner into the works since you can now tweek your images to simulate film.. Not quite the same but interesting. http://www.rangefindermag.com/repository/rf/articles/pdf/Aug08_68.pdf

K


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
It's funny how Kodak can't make any money selling film because everything is going digital - but the Japanese still make film and have cornered the market, not only on film, but on everything digital, with all major makes being Japanese in origin.

Just another example of a North American industry fragging itself, then handing it all over to the Japanese...


----------



## screature

Niteshooter said:


> Photographers choose their film based on the films characteristics. Always been the case IMHO...
> 
> Digital has pretty much tossed a spanner into the works since you can now tweek your images to simulate film.. Not quite the same but interesting. http://www.rangefindermag.com/repository/rf/articles/pdf/Aug08_68.pdf
> 
> K


Very good assessment Niteshooter... certainly been the case for me and every photographer I have ever known. Very true of digital as well.


----------



## bgw

EvanPitts said:


> Just another example of a North American industry fragging itself, then handing it all over to the Japanese...


It's funny what thinking 3 years out instead of 3 months out will do for a company....


----------



## Niteshooter

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> It's funny how Kodak can't make any money selling film because everything is going digital - but the Japanese still make film and have cornered the market, not only on film, but on everything digital, with all major makes being Japanese in origin.


Not sure what it is with Kodak, they've made colossal blunders in the past. One that comes to mind is that they were the first out the door with CCD sensors for Pro digital cameras. Then they dropped the ball.

All our first Pro cameras where Canon or Nikon Pro bodies with Kodak sensors grafted on. They weren't cheap either, $15k for a DCS-1 which was flakey as heck to work with and took PCMCIA hard drives. But for news photography it was nessessary as this system could shave precious minutes off the process maybe even an hour and meant less gear to cart around.

If I recall, their development of sensors was always met with internal opposition because Kodak made film.... whoops.

I guess the Japanese have a different corporate mind set and they can see a way to make a profit in a small market. Or just make a product at a reduced profit because there is a niche market for it. An example would be this Sakura infrared film which is only made once a year and coveted by photographers the way a fine wine would be to a wine expert.

K


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
That's not the whole story, simply because Kodak was always behind the times, even 40 years ago, when they didn't bother bringing out a 35mm SLR because they thought no one would buy them. They handed that whole market to a number of Japanese makes. Of course, Kodak did try to make a Polaroid clone until that went down in flames. They just seem to be content with trying to score profit off of making cheap stuff, like their Easy Share cameras, which take some of the nastiest looking pictures possible - while one can spend just a little more and get way better shots out of some point and shoot Canon or Nikon.

I think Fuji has really taken the market away from Kodak. The ironic thing is that I buy Kodak B&W film for my Minolta - but the pictures end up being processed by Fuji...


----------



## Amiga2000HD

Kodak's been their own worst enemy for years.

I've shot Kodachrome pretty much exclusively since 2000, with a very rare roll of Fuji E6 film thrown into the mix. If I were to change over to digital, I'd be purchasing a Canon DSLR of some kind so I can continue using my EF mount lenses. Since I don't shoot print film and I don't like Kodak's E6 slide films, and my existing equipment dictates Canon if I go digital, Kodak's fenced themselves out of having me as a customer. A number of my friends wouldn't be Kodak customers at all except for Kodachrome as well.

I will miss Kodachrome when my existing stockpile runs out, though.


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
They are just giving up - and offer nothing in return. It might be different if they had a decent camera and a decent printer, but they only have some nasty cheap cameras and cheap printers that just don't make the grade for anything than kiddie style snapshots. That's their mentality, just like much of North American industry that refuses to innovate and compete - and then they wonder why they fold.  Kodak just doesn't have anything that can compare to the Japanese makes, except perhaps when it comes to being two dollars cheaper for inferior products...


----------



## Amiga2000HD

I was having that discussion about Kodak's current product lineup with some friends of mine who are also heavy Kodachrome users. We call it the "GM School of Business Management", the approach that Kodak's taken with running the company. None of us buys anything from Kodak; nobody I know of shoots negatives or likes Ektacrap film. Kodak's lost at least three of us as customers and probably more. I say probably more because I dropped by Henry's/Downtown Camera/Vistek in Toronto today to see if I could get any Kodachrome before it's all gone but they'd all sold out and from talking to the sales staff, they all told me that they've heard a lot of people say the same thing, that Kodachrome's the only Kodak product they bought.

So Kodak's current line up:


Digital cameras - the consumer stuff is garbage. Professionals buy Caonon/Pentax/Nikon as they always have.
Consumer film - Kodak MAX is utter garbage and always has been and nobody I know has ever liked Elite Chrome.
Professional films - nobody I know likes Ektacrap either.
Black and white - they killed the B&W business after sponsoring a black and white photography event.

So the can't compete in the consumer arena, but they've chased off all the serious photographers by killing good products. This leaves them peddling garbage to consumers in an extremely tough area to compete in, and a licenser of intellectual property the way Dolby Labs does, except they actually make good technology. Personally, I suspect Kodak will survive in vastly reduced form by licensing their name and intellectual property.


----------



## Niteshooter

Sadly that is a pretty good analysis of where Kodak is at now.

I was in Factory Direct the other day picking up a couple of cheap CF cards for a project I'm working on. Noticed they had the ZD8612 IS for $119 as a refurb. Actually not a bad camera because of the lens but....

I'll post some pix in another thread.

Kevin


----------



## ScanMan

On a budget? Need a black piece of plastic that resembles a camera? NEW, from guess who. 

Steves Digicams - Kodak Easyshare Z915 - Hands on Review

It's sad, really.


----------



## mrjimmy

The Kodachrome Project


----------



## mrjimmy

I agree that types of film suit their subject. I will always use Fuji in situations that requiring a cool cast. As well, Kodak (in its many forms) for warmth.

Although I found that both Kodachrome and Kodak Infrared Film transcended this and lent their unique effect to all situations. They had a quality unlike any other type of film. I'm saddened by the loss of both of these products. Although many have disappeared over the years such as a Kodak Ektar 25, Tech Pan and Recording Film. All of these I used religiously in my shooting.


----------



## ScanMan

From a site I visit from time to time. Be sure to click for a full size image. It's that unmistakable look.

4x5 Kodachromes | Shorpy Photo Archive


----------

