RIP Kodachrome

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,892
10,713
147
PARSONS, Kan. — An unlikely pilgrimage is under way to Dwayne’s Photo, a small family business that has through luck and persistence become the last processor in the world of Kodachrome, the first successful color film and still the most beloved.

jp-FILM-3-articleInline.jpg

Steve Hebert for The New York Times



jp-FILM-1-articleInline.jpg

Kodachrome rewarded generations of skilled users with a richness of color and a unique treatment of light.


jp-FILM-2-articleInline.jpg


Dwayne’s Photo, in Parsons, Kan., will be processing the final rolls of it Thursday.

That celebrated 75-year run from mainstream to niche photography is scheduled to come to an end on Thursday when the last processing machine is shut down here to be sold for scrap.

In the last weeks, dozens of visitors and thousands of overnight packages have raced here, transforming this small prairie-bound city not far from the Oklahoma border for a brief time into a center of nostalgia for the days when photographs appeared not in the sterile frame of a computer screen or in a pack of flimsy prints from the local drugstore but in the warm glow of a projector pulling an image from a carousel of vivid slides.

In the span of minutes this week, two such visitors arrived. The first was a railroad worker who had driven from Arkansas to pick up 1,580 rolls of film that he had just paid $15,798 to develop. The second was an artist who had driven directly here after flying from London to Wichita, Kan., on her first trip to the United States to turn in three rolls of film and shoot five more before the processing deadline.

The artist, Aliceson Carter, 42, was incredulous as she watched the railroad worker, Jim DeNike, 53, loading a dozen boxes that contained nearly 50,000 slides into his old maroon Pontiac. He explained that every picture inside was of railroad trains and that he had borrowed money from his father’s retirement account to pay for developing them.

“That’s crazy to me,” Ms. Carter said. Then she snapped a picture of Mr. DeNike on one of her last rolls.

Demanding both to shoot and process, Kodachrome rewarded generations of skilled users with a richness of color and a unique treatment of light that many photographers described as incomparable even as they shifted to digital cameras. “Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day,” Paul Simon sang in his 1973 hit “Kodachrome,” which carried the plea “Mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away.”

As news media around the world have heralded Thursday’s end of an era, rolls of the discontinued film that had been hoarded in freezers and tucked away in closets, sometimes for decades, have flooded Dwayne’s Photo, arriving from six continents.

“It’s more than a film, it’s a pop culture icon,” said Todd Gustavson, a curator from the George Eastman House, a photography museum in Rochester in the former residence of the Kodak founder. “If you were in the postwar baby boom, it was the color film, no doubt about it.”

Among the recent visitors was Steve McCurry, a photographer whose work has appeared for decades in National Geographic including his well-known cover portrait, shot in Kodachrome, of a Afghan girl that highlights what he describes as the “sublime quality” of the film. When Kodak stopped producing the film last year, the company gave him the last roll, which he hand-delivered to Parsons. “I wasn’t going to take any chances,” he explained.

At the peak, there were about 25 labs worldwide that processed Kodachrome, but the last Kodak-run facility in the United States closed several years ago, then the one in Japan and then the one in Switzerland. Since then, all that was left has been Dwayne’s Photo. Last year, Kodak stopped producing the chemicals needed to develop the film, providing the business with enough to continue processing through the end of 2010. And last week, right on schedule, the lab opened up the last canister of blue dye.

Kodak declined to comment for this article.

The status of lone survivor is a point of pride for Dwayne Steinle, who remembers being warned more than once by a Kodak representative after he opened the business more than a half-century ago that the area was too sparsely populated for the studio to succeed. It has survived in part because Mr. Steinle and his son Grant focused on lower-volume specialties — like black-and-white and print-to-print developing, and, in the early ’90s, the processing of Kodachrome.

Still, the toll of the widespread switch to digital photography has been painful for Dwayne’s, much as it has for Kodak. In the last decade, the number of employees has been cut to about 60 from 200 and digital sales now account for nearly half of revenue. Most of the staff and even the owners acknowledge that they primarily use digital cameras. “That’s what we see as the future of the business,” said Grant Steinle, who runs the business now.

The passing of Kodachrome has been much noted, from the CBS News program ”Sunday Morning” to The Irish Times, but it is noteworthy in no small part for how long it survived. Created in 1935, Kodachrome was an instant hit as the first film to effectively render color.

Even when it stopped being the default film for chronicling everyday life — thanks in part to the move to prints from slides — it continued to be the film of choice for many hobbyists and medical professionals. Dr. Bharat Nathwani, 65, a Los Angeles pathologist, lamented that he still had 400 unused rolls. “I might hold it, God willing that Kodak sees its lack of wisdom.”

This week, the employees at Dwayne’s worked at a frenetic pace, keeping a processing machine that has typically operated just a few hours a day working around the clock (one of the many notes on the lab wall reads: “I took this to a drugstore and they didn’t even know what it was”).
“We really didn’t expect it to be this crazy,” said Lanie George, who manages the Kodachrome processing department.

One of the toughest decisions was how to deal with the dozens of requests from amateurs and professionals alike to provide the last roll to be processed.

In the end, it was determined that a roll belonging to Dwayne Steinle, the owner, would be last. It took three tries to find a camera that worked. And over the course of the week he fired off shots of his house, his family and downtown Parsons. The last frame is already planned for Thursday, a picture of all the employees standing in front of Dwayne’s wearing shirts with the epitaph: “The best slide and movie film in history is now officially retired. Kodachrome: 1935-2010.”
It gave us those nice bright colors. :thumbsup:
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Good riddance. My parents bought me a camera when I was a kid but I could never take photos with it because film was so expensive.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Sigh. Kodachrome film is a classic part of photograpic history. I hate to see it go.
 

qliveur

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2007
4,090
74
91
To me, digital photography vs. film photography is reminiscent of digital audio vs. analog audio. Here we are, 25 years after the CD took over, and 24-bit audio, which finally approaches the richness of analog recording, is just now starting to catch on.

By getting rid of film so quickly, I think that they're making a very similar mistake.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
To me, digital photography vs. film photography is reminiscent of digital audio vs. analog audio. Here we are, 25 years after the CD took over, and 24-bit audio, which finally approaches the richness of analog recording, is just now starting to catch on.

By getting rid of film so quickly, I think that they're making a very similar mistake.

color film still exists, its just that Kodachrome does not
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
To me, digital photography vs. film photography is reminiscent of digital audio vs. analog audio. Here we are, 25 years after the CD took over, and 24-bit audio, which finally approaches the richness of analog recording, is just now starting to catch on.

By getting rid of film so quickly, I think that they're making a very similar mistake.

Film is still out there. You just have to buy Ektachrome if you want a Kodak film.
e6 processing is so much easier.

-edit--I meant if you want Kodak slides (positive film).
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Yep, kodachrome images are great. They have a life and a "pop" to them that other images can't match. When it came out, it was something.

http://sites.google.com/site/earlykodachromeimages/

I enjoyed that.

Nice link, thanks.

I find looking at old pictures strangely depressing. There's something weird looking at all these normal people... and they are almost all dead now. Weirds me right out.

Were we looking at the same pictures? I felt the opposite. For some reason, I wish I could have existed back then...even if it was during the Great Depression.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
kodachrome was wonderful film. Sad to see it go. :(

My only real camera is still a film SLR. I use my phone for quick photos more than anything else, or borrow a digital P&S.
I'll get a digital SLR some day, but only when there is an affordable FX-format camera from Nikon and has wonderful capabilities.

To me, the richness of real grain and the tonal properties of good film are not being replaced just yet. But it's not something you really get much of a chance to see in a good way using 35mm or using a sensor of similar size.
I do want to get a medium-format Hassleblad, or a smaller-size Large format.

However, I do find it interesting I can still enjoy looking at developed film and the prints so much, when I am partially colorblind.
On that note, no artificial B&W photo can possibly match the tonal properties of true black & white film. That, developed properly (by hand) led to some absolutely inky photos, just awesome.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
To me, digital photography vs. film photography is reminiscent of digital audio vs. analog audio. Here we are, 25 years after the CD took over, and 24-bit audio, which finally approaches the richness of analog recording, is just now starting to catch on.
Except that its more like the divide between first generation digital audio and umpteenth generation analog, in the early 1980s. Kodachrome at the level of refinement that has existed for 30 years is BETTER than current consumer or prosumer digital camera technology. I think Kodak's push to kill Kodachrome is still five full years premature, maybe even 10.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,732
18,038
126
Except that its more like the divide between first generation digital audio and umpteenth generation analog, in the early 1980s. Kodachrome at the level of refinement that has existed for 30 years is BETTER than current consumer or prosumer digital camera technology. I think Kodak's push to kill Kodachrome is still five full years premature, maybe even 10.

I did some work for Kodak back in the mid 90s. Had to replace their control interface because the punch card reader heads were worn and they could not find replacement heads since all the companies are long gone :biggrin: Ended up using touchscreen. It's the instructions to the chemical kettle operators.
 

bruceb

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
8,874
111
106
Sorry to see it go. He should not scrap that processor. One day it will be worth something to a collector. As to films and such, pros still use film for best pictures, just like a lot of records and broadcast studios still use real records, just as they use pro grade 1 inch video tapes and not the cheap stuff.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Sad day for film.
If you have never worked with film in a darkroom you have missed out. Film is so versatile compared to digital. With film if the roll was shot bad and I know it ahead of time I can alter the processing. If I want a different look there are so many to choose from.

With film on the decline I encourage people to set up a small darkroom. Supplies are getting cheaper as people move to digital and manufacturers are cutting prices . When you put that paper in the trays to start developing it and you shake the paper and start to see your image slowly fade into view , it really is a great feeling. Kids especially love it. It is a lot more memorable experience than just clicking play image.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,892
10,713
147
Sad day for film.
If you have never worked with film in a darkroom you have missed out. [...]

When you put that paper in the trays to start developing it and you shake the paper and start to see your image slowly fade into view , it really is a great feeling. Kids especially love it. It is a lot more memorable experience than just clicking play image.

There's an involvement in the "ritual" that is both pleasing and wholly engrossing.

It is just one of the many such anachronistic "rituals of involvement" that are mostly lost to the "youts" of today, such as playing LP's on a turntable on which you have finely calibrated the pressure weight of the tone-arm while you clean your pot on the album cover after having devoured the liner notes and liner art.

REAL MANLY MEN used to bang out entire novels on manual typewriters with viscerally impressive speed and accuracy. No white out, no cry, bitch.

Hell, way back in that day, getting a lady's many layers of undergarments fully off required a dexterity and commitment to task-completion sorely lacking in the "unpeel your unitard, Brittany" generation of today. :p

I weep for the future of the Republic, I tell you what! :awe: