They took our Kodachrome away...

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...us_kodachrome_s_demise

ROCHESTER, N.Y. ? Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away.

The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its oldest film stock because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age.

The world's first commercially successful color film, immortalized in song by Simon, spent 74 years in Kodak's portfolio. It enjoyed its heyday in the 1950s and '60s but in recent years has nudged closer to obscurity: Sales of Kodachrome are now just a fraction of 1 percent of the company's total sales of still-picture films, and only one commercial lab in the world still processes it.

Those numbers and the unique materials needed to make it convinced Kodak to call its most recent manufacturing run the last, said Mary Jane Hellyar, the outgoing president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group.

"Kodachrome is particularly difficult (to retire) because it really has become kind of an icon," Hellyar said.

The company now gets about 70 percent of its revenue from its digital business, but plans to stay in the film business "as far into the future as possible," Hellyar said. She points to the seven new professional still films and several new motion picture films introduced in the last few years and to a strategy that emphasizes efficiency.

"Anywhere where we can have common components and common design and common chemistry that let us build multiple films off of those same components, then we're in a much stronger position to be able to continue to meet customers' needs," she said.

Kodachrome, because of a unique formula, didn't fit in with the philosophy and was made only about once a year.

Simon sang about it in 1973 in the aptly titled "Kodachrome."



Kodachrome really was the best film for many years, though towards the end Fuji made some pretty good film.
Just think. Your children will grow up in an age without Kodachrome
:brokenheart:
 

xanis

Lifer
Sep 11, 2005
17,571
8
0
Correction: Our children will grow up in an age without FILM. I appreciate the power of digital photography, but the time, effort, and process required to shoot and develop film is a great experience.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I think I grew up without kodachrome :) First flim I ever had was 126, I believe, which was old. I had one-time use flashes on my camera which were on a tower. Hell, that was decades ago and old even then. My brother got a new and snazzy 110 camera. Digital definitely rocks it out.
 

PClark99

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2000
3,829
72
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think I grew up without kodachrome :) First flim I ever had was 126, I believe, which was old. I had one-time use flashes on my camera which were on a tower. Hell, that was decades ago and old even then. My brother got a new and snazzy 110 camera. Digital definitely rocks it out.

you sure those weren't daguerrotypes? ;)
 

bobdole369

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2004
4,504
2
0
Analog photography is already making inroads. There are quite a few pros that I know who have eschewed the lack of dynamic range in digital cameras and enjoy the greater latitude color negative films offer, as well the look of transparency films. They tried the new way - they don't like it.

Add in some cheap film camera love a la Holga/Diana/BBF, and there is still quite a market for some time to come. Pro's still use it, so it still gets made.

Kodachrome - quite difficult to process and handle, only done by one photo lab here in the USA (dale's) - back in the day, there were more but you still had to send it away. Kodachrome was actually killed by one hour photo labs doing C-41, not digital.

 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,071
32,349
136
I never shot much Kodachrome but a lot of Ektachrome. I still haven't forgiven Kodak for discontinuing Ektar 25 (later Royal Gold 25). Bastards.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
I loved Kodachrome 64. But IMO, any Ektachrome offering killed it. I only shot it to get some sort of misplaced nostalgia that I wasn't around for.
If I shot film again, and had to go slides...I would pick up one of the new Ektachromes over Kodachrome. It's like shooting Tri-X over any modern Ilford or Kodak B&W.
I loved Velvia, but it's soooo limited. The colors for portraits only worked for certain looks, and it's best was dialed in at ISO 40. Versatile, slide film was not.

When it came to negative film, I do not miss developing the least bit. Fuddle around in complete darkness isn't enjoyable. Printing on the enlarger was fun. It is kind of magical to see a projected image of your photo, then to see it come to life in a really dim light is kind of captivating.

I was an anti-digital guy for a brief minute. Then, I discovered a new magic that goes by the name of Photoshop and Lightroom.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: ironwing
I never shot much Kodachrome but a lot of Ektachrome. I still haven't forgiven Kodak for discontinuing Ektar 25 (later Royal Gold 25). Bastards.

AGFA Ultra 50 would be a great substitute. Not quite the same though.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
34
91
Originally posted by: bobdole369
Kodachrome was actually killed by one hour photo labs doing C-41, not digital.

Eh, I'd argue that Kodachrome was killed by E-6. If E-6 had never come along, Kodachrome would still be around even with C-41 print films out there.

Of course, I personally love "Disneychrome" (Velvia) so my analysis is going to be considered suspect by any Kodachrome lover. ;)

ZV
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,608
30,885
146
Originally posted by: Xanis
Correction: Our children will grow up in an age without FILM. I appreciate the power of digital photography, but the time, effort, and process required to shoot and develop film is a great experience.

:brokenheart:

I heard this on NPR this morning. very sad.
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Yesterday, NPR said there's only one commercial lab in the world that processes kodachrome anymore. The number of kodachrome users was a very small fraction of 1% of kodak's total film sales.

Brought to you by Kodachrome: pic
 

40Hands

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2004
5,042
0
71
Meh. Analog photography could go away completely and I wouldn't miss it. The time and money needed for it just isn't worth it.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: 40Hands
Meh. Analog photography could go away completely and I wouldn't miss it. The time and money needed for it just isn't worth it.

get into a darkroom and/or see the results of skilled film photographers, and you'll either change your opinion or just keep ignoring the craft.

film is where it is at for image quality and art purposes. digital has its uses and I'd use it if working in the press or commercial portrait field, but getting out into the world to just capture amazing shots... digital just looks harsh, the balance is terrible and requires far too much software editing to just get it in the same ballpark as film, though digital wouldn't be in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: 40Hands
Meh. Analog photography could go away completely and I wouldn't miss it. The time and money needed for it just isn't worth it.

get into a darkroom and/or see the results of skilled film photographers, and you'll either change your opinion or just keep ignoring the craft.

film is where it is at for image quality and art purposes. digital has its uses and I'd use it if working in the press or commercial portrait field, but getting out into the world to just capture amazing shots... digital just looks harsh, the balance is terrible and requires far too much software editing to just get it in the same ballpark as film, though digital wouldn't be in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.

I disagree with all of that. It's my opinion that digital is very much in the league of film. Plus, any extra time spent in software editing is no different than time spent in the darkroom.

Old timers who grew up with film are just mad that the younger generation is garnering amazing results with digital in a fraction of the time. It's no longer an exclusive club, and I think that simply pisses off a lot of film users and followers of the "craft".

A lot of people will disagree, but it's my opinion, so whatever.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: peritusONE
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: 40Hands
Meh. Analog photography could go away completely and I wouldn't miss it. The time and money needed for it just isn't worth it.

get into a darkroom and/or see the results of skilled film photographers, and you'll either change your opinion or just keep ignoring the craft.

film is where it is at for image quality and art purposes. digital has its uses and I'd use it if working in the press or commercial portrait field, but getting out into the world to just capture amazing shots... digital just looks harsh, the balance is terrible and requires far too much software editing to just get it in the same ballpark as film, though digital wouldn't be in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.

I disagree with all of that. It's my opinion that digital is very much in the league of film. Plus, any extra time spent in software editing is no different than time spent in the darkroom.

Old timers who grew up with film are just mad that the younger generation is garnering amazing results with digital in a fraction of the time. It's no longer an exclusive club, and I think that simply pisses off a lot of film users and followers of the "craft".

A lot of people will disagree, but it's my opinion, so whatever.
Print out 100 pictures taken with a mixture of Digital and film and I'll pick them out correctly 90% of the time.
Even as high res as digital gets, it still misses the life of the photograph. I'm not a photographer, and hell I take more pictures with my POS cell phone than I ever have with a film camera, but I can see the difference.