Posted on 09/22/2008 2:58:14 AM PDT by decimon
It is an elaborately crafted photographic film, extolled for its sharpness, vivid colors and archival durability. Yet die-hard fan Alex Webb is convinced the digital age soon will take his Kodachrome away.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsvine.com ...
bookmark
Digital pictures can be stunning, to be sure......but I agree with the article’s point. There is a certain........sterility?.........to many digital images. I liken it to the difference between CD’s and vinyl records: same music, and yes it’s very clear......but there’s a ‘warmth’ missing with CD’s.
Make sense at all?
I still use it in my Nikon manual focus SLR’s. Its still the best slide film ever made and it will be a tragedy if it goes away.
Digital images, while certainly convenient, have no soul.
I just purchased 20 rolls of Kodachrome for my trip to the Philippines. I hope Kodak doesn’t discontinue this. It’s really the best transparency film out there. Thoughout my 20 years of photography, my favorite images are in Kodachrome. It captures the light of the late afternoon sun like no other.
I’m really not qualified to judge Kodachrome versus other captures but you two echo what is said by many, including the photographers quoted in the article.
I thought this interesting, “Steve McCurry’s portrait of an Afghan refugee girl with haunting gray-green eyes that landed on the cover of National Geographic in 1985 is considered one of the finest illustrations of the film’s subtle rendering of light, contrast and color harmony.”, as that pic got a lot of play here at FR.
I stopped using Kodachrome in the early 80s when the new generation of Fujichrome hit the market. Fujichrome 50 had the same grain and sharpness as Kodachrome 25, much better colour rendition (especially fleshtones), cost less and could be processed anywhere.
Turncoat! Quisling!
Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama dont take my Kodachrome away
0101010101010101010101010101010
Has no soul.
Has no soul.
But it has rhythm.
It seems to be a common result of technology advancement. Think of the automobile whose 'soul' was lost with the now common computer components, the Golden Age of the airlines lost when passenger jets replaced the four-engine prop, or the death of the home-cooked meal after the introduction of TV dinners, fast food and the microwave.
There are good things and bad things about new technology, and we all have the right to stick with the old. If enough stuck with it, the new would never gain traction and the old would flourish. If enough don't, the manufacturers can't justify the expense involved in making it and it dies.
Sadly, much like the major award in A Christmas Story, maybe the old is best laid to rest beside the garage as we hum Taps.
I don't think so. I don't believe George Eastman would think so.
Are some lamenters here only sentimentally attached to film (and vinyl records)?
Yes. As with wine, a blind test would likely reveal that few can tell the difference between capture devices.
There’s a program, probably a Photoshop plug-in, that simulates all kinds of different film types and brands. I think Kodachrome and Fuji Velvia are included. I haven’t got it yet; I’m still working on figuring out how the damn digital camera works...
The "real" original Kodachrome 10 was replaced by Kodachrome 25 in the early 70s, and big-name Life Magazine aces did the same thing. I got about 25 rolls at a big discount and stored them in the freezer for a year or so until they were all used up. My earliest Kodachrome 10 slides from 1951, shot with an Argus C-3 (the GI's PX special at about $30) are still sharp after 57 years.
I Think what I will miss most is some of the great Black and White films which digital doesn't seem to be able to come close to. PanX developed using direct positive to produce Black and White transparencies is absolutely beautiful. If you have never tried it, you should before it's gone. Also, I forget the film name right now, but there is a scientific B/W film that you can use a special low contrast developer for that produces sharp 4’x6’ B/W prints with almost no grain at 12 ASA.
I will miss film so much. Kodachrome, Fujichome, PanX, CibaChrome, Tri-X, VPS, etc...
The only thing though is that the very best digital SLR’s from Canon and Nikon have just about reached the same sharpness level as slide film (though they won’t compare to larger frame medium-format film for a while). I’ve seen the image results from Canon’s new EOS 5D Mark II with its 21-megapixel full-frame sensor and the sharpness of detail leaves nothing to be desired.
My personal favourites in black and white are the Ilford products, especially Pan F and HP5. HP5 pushed to 1600 or 3200 can produce stunning results- very grainy but the grain pattern is such that it enhances the image. I also like shooting with IR film- HS infrared and Ektachrome Infrared will definitely be missed.
The main difference is pixel size- with film it's almost at the molecular level. Digital will probably get there but it's still a long way off.
Odd. Most of my records had more ‘Snap! Crackle! Pop!’ than a bowl of Rice Krispies...
I was amazed when CDs came out. I thought ‘hiss’ was just a part of music.
In my childhood, B&W film was still easy to find; by about 1980 (at least around here), it had become something mostly found in shops frequented by pro photographers. Signs at the one-hour processing places said, no same-day for B&W. High-end digital cameras are going to take over, but of course there will be those who still use ‘em, just as there are antique cars, sailboats, and 25 year old computers being used by hobbyists (grin).
:’D
(unless I miss my guess, that was nearly a Linus Van Pelt moment)
Well said.
In the 1980s, when CDs started to hit with ordinary mass-market titles (”Born In The USA” was the first on I noticed, and I’d been buying CDs for a little while before that, even before I had a player), there were old grumblers (including some friends of mine) who said they were a ripoff “because you can’t record on them.” Prior to 8-track and cassette, there was reel to reel, but there was also the record player, which sold far more.
Cassette was nice for building up various artist tapes for the car ride, or capturing stuff off the air, but A) I’ve played a cassette, on average, perhaps once a year since 2000, and B) one of my best friends, who’s only seven years younger, has *never* owned any kind of cassette player or recorder. That one boggles my mind.
Despite the boggling, knocking out various artist CDs for the car ride, or 15 hours of mp3s for the office listening (since they’ve cut our streaming audio, the bastards) is trivial to accomplish. And there’s nothing I want to record off the air. :’)
When I was in Viet Nam I shot several dozen rolls of Kodachrome film and had it all processed into slides. That very same film is now fading and nearly worthless. Mostly the only color left is red. I had them scanned recently before even the red goes away. It’s too bad I didn’t use a nice black-and-white film, at least that would still be clear and sharp.
I love the digital formats. I did read an article recently that tells me where digital is heading. The sharpness and resolution of typical consumer photographic film is limited by the grain size of the slver emulsion on the film and that (for the grade used by the majority of consumers) is equivalent to a 19.6 Megapixel image.
We are almost there with the camers available today.
Has no soul.
But, unless it fades so badly that the zeros turn into ones or vice versa, it doesn't fade at all.
You may have to trade those in for some Linus Torvalds moments.
The test of resolution is how far you can blow up a photo and still see useful new detail.
Check out this view of downtown Boston, shot from atop the Prudential tower. Over on the left side, you can see the band shell on the Charles River Esplanade. See if you can see which FM station was sponsoring the concert.
You can make CDs sound like vinyl by applying noise and altering the frequency response. I would liken the preference for vinyl sound to my personal preference to Bose 901 speakers. I know they aren't accurate, but I like them.
As for Kodachrome, I'm old enough to remember Kodachrome 10 and remember the controversy over the speed increase to 25. I have slide scanner and have scanned some of my old Kodachrome slides in 48 bit depth. (This example is a jpeg, not the original scan.) I agree that a Kodachrome slide has more information than any 35mm digital camera that I have seen. But digital is catching up and given another five years will surpass any film when comparing sensor size to equivalent film size.
I guess I'll stick to the prosumer market for a while.
I think digital will get there within 5 years. And I think we will start seeing medium format sensors hit the pro-sumer market as well. Catching photons isn't nearly as important as the photographer who does it--and film makes for more restrictions and gives less ability to experiment than with digital.
The main remaining problem I see is with the viewing technology. The color gamut and contrast of LCD, CRT, and Plasma are ridiculously tiny compared to what the eye can see. And with the proliferation of cheap LCD "photo frames" we will probably never see the full spectrum of what was captured originally. LED-backlit LCD screens may be the best so far for computer displays, but my hope is that we will see OLED surpass these technologies soon.
I use Fuji pro. I don’t like what it does to blue though.
Maybe some company will continue making film, but I’d expect prices to go up as demand falls.
Now they just photoshop (and yes even National Geographic cuts and pastes and moves animals and monuments around).
Reminds me of some old glass negatives I heard about (probably 8x10) of a city this way. I heard they were zooming in enlarging just portions and seeing identifiable people. I can see people in this zoom (the park near the band shell).
Pretty amazing.
Do you have more details on this shoot?
Professional photographers may use digital SLRs but a large portion of the marketplace used “point and shoots” (that can zoom” but most people are looking at the back of the camera (even some pros) rather than lining up a shot with their own eye through the lens.
And who among the digital realm consider “photoshopping” an image to be cheating? It may be excuseable for the family photo album, but how about for news journalism? It happens every day.
When you read National Geographic are you reading it for an accurate depiction of exotic locales or to see pretty pictures?
Film leaves an unaltered record of what was captured, no matter what you subsequently do to it in a darkroom or computer.
Once the government got you to end your emotional attachment to your car (and car culture) it makes it easier to get you to separate from your car (or your older kind of car).
We are forcing the public to give up their old tvs (and soon radios) as well. I just weathered a hurricane. Digital reception was crap as the receiver has to continue to resync the signal. I may miss a word through analog static, but at least I could still get weather updates on my radio.
Low flow toilets by law? Do these things work with less than 2 flushes?
How about forcing us to switch to mercury laden fluorescent lights?
You may not “see” the difference but it is there in these technologies.
A projected movie strobes (still frames flash in rapid sucession). Projected video is a continous cycle of alternating scanlines. Shoot video or take pictures of the screen and the difference may become apparent. Same way with the green cast and pulse (and hum) of fluourescent lights. It affects different people on a subsconscious level. Shouldn’t the market determine it?
Kodak is a business, no one is tell them to stop making it. Not so with broadcasters and lighting companies.
And with the destruction of all of our major gathering places (stadiums etc) where we witnessed history (not just sporting events or concerts) and regentrification tearing down all the old neighborhoods, we are being forced to break with the past.
Some of it just smells of socialism to me. “it’s for your own good”.
If it is not for a scientific or strategic application, just artistic, then grain is an acceptable conscious decision.
You can get the new Canon EOS 5D with its standard lens for around US$2,500 if you’re willing to find a good discount dealer online.
Oh I agree with you about grain. I wouldn’t shoot most things in the fine grain film, but done right it produced some stunning shots.
I've seen dagguerreotypes that looked very detailed.
Absolutely. I agree as well. Clear yes. Lacking texture and as you say warmth yes. I like both for different reasons. My husband and I are switching over to digital for art photos now and still looking for the best camera. We both love film.
Wow, that appears to have been shot through a window, and it’s clear as a bell. 103.3 would be the answer to your question.
Huffing the mercury again?
Visit their front door and click Enter. I note they are using Google to host their images, no doubt using the Google Maps tiling software to keep the bandwidth load under control.
Here's an old analog black and white (2 August 1914), in which an individual was identified:
Oh no! I mix it in my cocktails!
Belated thanks for your reply - I see you are exactly right - good point. ;-)
I told my (younger) boss today that Paul Simon had a song called Kodachrome on his There Goes Rhymin’ Simon album, and he couldn’t understand why. At least he didn’t ask who Paul Simon is.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.