Kodachrome - The End of an Era

[quantim0]

I have always been partial to Velvia, but I wouldn't even know where to get a roll processed. Film just has something digital will never have.

[M1903A1]

Having attended more slide/movie shows than I can count (as a train buff), I remember case after case of Kodachrome images that were fifty or more years old yet still looked like they been shot yesterday, while Ansco or even Ektachrome images--that were only twenty or thirty years old--were washed out and turning red or blue.

The secret of Kodachrome, I've been told, was that the film itself was three separate layers of black-and-white emulsion with filter layers, that responded according to the three basic colors. The color dyes themselves were added during the development process, which I've heard involved as many as fifteen different, tightly-controlled steps.

[T.G]

Originally Posted by RGD.

Couple months ago I was going through some storage boxes looking for something and ran across a couple of rolls - never shot. They are still in there - way pass the expiration dates. Guess I will put them together with the ole Polaroid Land camera (of which I still have film for).

Ron

Kodachrome was relatively insensitive to expiration dates. Assuming that those rolls are less than a generation old or so, if you wanted to shoot it, that film is probably still good so long as it hasn't been baked.

Last I checked, you've got until December, longer if the chemical stocks last, to get it developed.

Originally Posted by quantim0

I have always been partial to Velvia, but I wouldn't even know where to get a roll processed. Film just has something digital will never have.

Velvia is E-6 process, aka: standard transparency/slide film, same as Ektachrome, any pro lab can do it, pretty much any small lab can send it out or you can mail it off yourself.

Originally Posted by M1903A1

Having attended more slide/movie shows than I can count (as a train buff), I remember case after case of Kodachrome images that were fifty or more years old yet still looked like they been shot yesterday, while Ansco or even Ektachrome images--that were only twenty or thirty years old--were washed out and turning red or blue.

The secret of Kodachrome, I've been told, was that the film itself was three separate layers of black-and-white emulsion with filter layers, that responded according to the three basic colors. The color dyes themselves were added during the development process, which I've heard involved as many as fifteen different, tightly-controlled steps.

Yes. It's a silver halide film that only contains the dye couplers. When it's in your camera, it's black and white.

And it's only 14 steps, hence the developing process name "K-14"

[M1903A1]

I remember Kodachrome processing could have its issues too...some of my friends, showing slides from the late 50s or early 60s, spoke of a period when their slides came back (from the Kodak plant, no less) looking dirty, like something had gone wrong in the development process. The images were fine, but they looked like they had dirt all over them. (And these were guys who were meticulous about storage and keeping their slides clean.)

They referred to slides from that era as "Cruddy-chromes".

[T.G]

Originally Posted by M1903A1

I remember Kodachrome processing could have its issues too...some of my friends, showing slides from the late 50s or early 60s, spoke of a period when their slides came back (from the Kodak plant, no less) looking dirty, like something had gone wrong in the development process. The images were fine, but they looked like they had dirt all over them. (And these were guys who were meticulous about storage and keeping their slides clean.)

They referred to slides from that era as "Cruddy-chromes".

If I'm thinking of what you are describing, then I've seen that happen with other processing formats too.

[macpappy]

I already miss Kodachrome. Having been a professional photographer since 1975 and for my money no one has yet to show me a digital photograph that is better then the same photograph shot on a good film medium. Of course that is subjective and is just my opinion. But I remember seeing high quality photographs enlarged to wall size and the image quality and grain was still excellent. I have rarely seen a digital photo enlarged to 20x24" that could hold up to the same quality.

I also miss the hours spent in a photographic darkroom processing black & white and color film and making my own prints. I know some people who are very accomplished at manipulating images in photoshop (I'm not too bad either) but it is just not the same.

Alas, I too finally switched to digital in 2006.

[Virginia_Ghost]

Originally Posted by M1903A1

Having attended more slide/movie shows than I can count (as a train buff), I remember case after case of Kodachrome images that were fifty or more years old yet still looked like they been shot yesterday, while Ansco or even Ektachrome images--that were only twenty or thirty years old--were washed out and turning red or blue.

The secret of Kodachrome, I've been told, was that the film itself was three separate layers of black-and-white emulsion with filter layers, that responded according to the three basic colors. The color dyes themselves were added during the development process, which I've heard involved as many as fifteen different, tightly-controlled steps.

Three of the steps in processing K-14 is actually a re-exposure of the film to different colors of light. I used to be a KC whore in my younger days as a budding photographer. I could do my own E-6, and C-41 processing, but there was always something wonderful about Koda-Chrome.

One of my favorite films back then was Kodachrome 25...then printing the slides on good old Cibachrome. Remember that?

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by quantim0

Film just has something digital will never have.

Several years ago I attended a program on archiving photographs, and an interesting point brought up was that we may see a lot of future images, in digital form, lost--either because the storage media doesn't hold up, or the means to pull them up and display them may no longer be available. (Which is already happening now with printed media, as programs like Wordstar and WordPerfect disappear into the mists of time and floppy disks atrophy.)

[JE3146]

Originally Posted by M1903A1

Several years ago I attended a program on archiving photographs, and an interesting point brought up was that we may see a lot of future images, in digital form, lost--either because the storage media doesn't hold up, or the means to pull them up and display them may no longer be available. (Which is already happening now with printed media, as programs like Wordstar and WordPerfect disappear into the mists of time and floppy disks atrophy.)

In the world of cloud networks, digital redundancy, online backups and people throwing hard drives in safe deposit boxes.

Honestly I trust storing digital photos more than I do actual photos for the sheer reason I can reprint photos from 1 of 6 redundant sources. It'd take a 2012(the movie) to eliminate some people's photos.

Now for the average person who doesn't backup, then yes. 100% agree. By now though people should know better.

As for legacy formats, there will always be a way to open a format unless it was incredibly niche and long since outdated. I'm a bit puzzled why you would reference Wordstar and WordPerfect in a discussion with photos, especially since Corel released a new version of WordPerfect in 2010.. as for Wordstar... RIP ...

But with programs like Photoshop that can save an image in almost any format possible, one can preserve the legacy of a photo almost indefinitely assuming future programs allow for similar actions.