U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Kodachrome/mold

Re: Kodachrome/mold

Public corporations can't afford to keep making unprofitable
products that have no prospect of growing market. A lot of
things Kodak did make perfect business sense.

Now in terms of technology, I am not sure if anyone knows what
are the factors that lead to the different results between
Kodachrome and Ektachrome-type films. My guess is the couplers
and the way couplers are applied. Can Ektachrome-type films be
made to reproduce the Kodachrome look? If anyone trid it? Is
anyone going to try? I don't know.

I think what healthy traditional photographic community needs
is more positive light, such as discussion of in what
situations film is better than digital, and spreading such
views through making more work that reflect the technical
uniqueness or superiority. (Two such things are night
photography and swing lens panoramic images.)

The last brand new 8mm film camera was shipped in
1984. Electronic video camera killed the 8mm. Twenty-four
years later, one can still buy 8mm film and have it processed
commercially, although the selection and price may not be as
good. Brand new film cameras are still shipping.

This year, more dSLRs are expected to ship than the annual
number for fSLRs in its peak year. So what? Most of those who
buy dSLR don't even have the digital editing skills comparable
to darkroom printing. Sure, the software is getting better to
make dSLRs a digital idior camera. If you are aiming low end
commercial photography job on craigslist you are SOL but we
aren't doing that here.

Gloom and doom? See below.

Ryuji Suzuki
"Strange how people who suffer together have stronger connections
than people who are most content." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)

From: Don Bryant <dsbryant@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Kodachrome/mold
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:38:32 -0400

> Dear Alters,
> Sorry Chris, I don't mean to hijack your thread, but what is really sad for
> me is the whole saga of Kodachrome film dying a slow death. It appears that
> it will be discontinued this year or next.
> No, I'm not trying to preach doom and gloom as the moderators on APUG are
> fond of saying. The year that Kodak stopped producing K25 was the year I
> stopped shooting Kodachrome. There was something special about how that film
> responded to light that I've not seen digital imaging or other films touch.
> Man, give me a roll of Kodachrome 25 and a Nikon/Leica camera and I'm all
> set. Just look at the color work of Ernst Haas, Harry Callahan, Fred Herzog,
> Esther Bubley, Jim Hughes, and Helen Levitt to name just a few. 
> For a little bit of Kodachrome inspiration take a look at some of the work
> by Herzog:
> http://www.equinoxgallery.com/artists_index.asp?artist_type=1&artist_id=121
> or Haas 
> http://www.ernst-haas.com/color_gallery.html 
> In all honesty though, Kodachrome processing is really costly, complex, and
> nasty; so it's demise is just a sign of the times. As its legacy fades into
> the past at least the slides won't fade away so quickly.
> Don Bryant