RE: Kodachrome/mold
Ryuji, > Public corporations can't afford to keep making unprofitable products that have no prospect of growing market. > The intent of my post wasn't to bash Kodak. I don't have a problem with their aggressive reorganization plans to eliminate unprofitable operations and products. The market today is what it is, and film companies have to do what is required to survive. This isn't anything new, most industries and companies therein have to re-invent there organizations periodically to survive with changes in the world of business. Think of GM for example. The current Kodak president Perez takes a lot of heat for his decisions, personally I support them, as bitter as they are some times. Kodak has moved from 20 billion dollar a year sales to about 1 billion for sensitized products. What company could survive that loss of sales without major changes? It's my opinion that if Kodak goes down the tubes that will be a sure sign that the entire world film industry is also in jeopardy. In some ways we live in the best of times for film technology but as the cost of film spirals upward every year, film sales continue to drop along with film camera sales. It's a popular thing to kick Kodak but what other film company does what it does? Ever tried calling Fuji or Ilford for technical support or going online to retrieve product information for their respective products? They can't match Kodak for consumer support, IMO. > 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. > However, as far as I'm concerned there isn't a replacement for the old Kodachrome 25 I or Kodachrome 25 II or Ektar 25. There are a lot of great color films on the market still but no equivalent product to our lamented Kodachrome - digital or film. A lot of things Kodak has done make perfect business sense. Whether they succeed or not, time will tell. Look at the release of the new TMAX 400 film, IMO that does show a commitment to film, though it may signal the near future loss of other B&W products as they continue to consolidate their B&W film line. How long will Plus-X be around? And they are doing the same thing with color film products. > 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.) > There is no doubt that there are still things that film technology can do that digital photography can't do. But saying that the film community needs a more positive outlook to me is simply not going to change the evolution of the film or filmless photography market. Kodak's HIE IR film is gone now. Is their an equivalent film or digital methodology out there to replace it? The answer is no. All of Polaroid is gone now. Are their replacements for Polaroid products? No! > 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. > Well did the consumer back in the heyday of film have the skills to process and print? No of course not! At one time the photo finishing industry was the 10th largest in the US. Where is it now? Gone are the days of mega labs processing 10s of thousands of rolls of film of all types. Now the consumer is primarily left with self serve kiosks or online services. > Gloom and doom? See below. > Sorry I disagree with your assessment of my post. I view it as being intellectually honest about the implication of the state of the photo market. But it was really intended to be a lament about Kodachrome. I'm not loosing sleep over it, just moving along with a sad look back. I continue to use film mostly but I also love using my DSLR, Photoshop, and my inkjet printer for prints and digital negatives. All of this digital vs. film - film vs. digital stuff has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam on the net. Let's not repeat it here, please. Don Bryant 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 > > >
|