Comments on: Kodak Retires Kodachrome – So What Now?

By: David Clark

David Clark — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:18:40 +0000

It is a reflection of Kodaks lack of direction (except for it’s share value, which is every down!)

They have sent the wrong messages to the public – stopping the manufacture of 35mm camera said that film for consumers was dying.. and now Kodachrome says that the film is almost dead for pros and prosumers….

… by removing the labs that could process the film to one made it hard for non us photographers…

But what have they lost.

The most archival storage medium for colour images.

Some of the CD’s I burnt a few years ago are no longer readable – and as for zip drives and syquests… you cant buy the readers any more.

In years to come, CD’s and DVD will be obsolite and the data will degrade – so we’ll be left with chromagenic prints or having to restore our data….

Kodak should of offered a “backup to Kodachrome” – where your images could be put onto Kodachrome for archival storage – which could be printed optically or scanned in 100 years time, knowing that there will be an image there… and with good profiles and pre-processing of the data the images would be as near perfect as it gets….. Major TV companies like the BBC already do this with high end productions.

So, in 50 years time, or 100, or 200, it will be seen as the big archive solution that should of happened

By: Everyone is talking about the Kodachrome 64, oh well… « writing with light

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:28:43 +0000

[...] and if they (i.e. Kodak Inc.) are really serious about the development of film photography (as what Figital Revolution says), I therefore truly trust them with such a decision, it’s all for the best of the [...]

By: iheartfilm

iheartfilm — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:14:11 +0000

I shuddered a little when I read that.

By: iheartfilm

iheartfilm — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:59:06 +0000

No! Those film presets for digital photographers are part of the problem. I laugh/cry whenever I see a digital image created with the Kodachrome preset.

By: WeeDram

WeeDram — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:49 +0000

Stephen,

The audio is interesting, plus it answered the question of why Josh was in Rochester but didn’t bother to look me up.

However, I cannot say I feel as good about the future of film as you state in the audio. You do realize that Hellyar retired effective the very day the Kodachrome “retirement” was announced, don’t you?

I linked to your entry on my blog … on which I wrote the following:

“I do not have complete trust in Kodak’s committment to film. This is born of the experience corporate behaviour. A company’s “word” on something seems to be as trustworthy for as long as the ink is drying on a corporate quarterly statement. With a new CEO, you have yet another new “committment to our customers”.

By: lxdude

lxdude — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:50:56 +0000

It’s rough losing an old friend like Kodachrome. I still remember how I felt when I looked at the first slide from the first box of Kodachrome I ever shot. That was in 1974, just after the release of the K-14 process films K25 and K64.
Roy, there are a couple of inaccuracies in your post.
The E-6 films use color couplers to form the dyes. The simplest way to think of it is that part of the dye is in the emulsion and the other part is in the developer.
In the USA, Kodak was forced by the Government in the 1950′s to allow others to offer processing and was no longer allowed to include processing in the price of the film.
Which I think was a good thing, because later on there were times when Kodak’s processing was pretty damn crappy. I never understood that: A magnificent film of unassailable quality, and indifferent, inconsistent processing.
Which doubtless hurt sales, especially in other parts of the world where people had to buy it with Kodak processing.

By: George Stumpf

George Stumpf — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:12:42 +0000

Sadly, knowledge and the seeking thereof, among younger journalists is lacking. They don’t experiment and seek out new worlds. I recently earned my B.S. in Communications (I am 50) and had major issues with my fellow students lack of thinking and broadening their horizons, some actually believe that because a Prof. Dr. said something it is gospel. Shades of the 1800′s Academy of Sciences,gasp, the horror., and wouldn’t try new things??
i now take photographs using paper negatives, (disabled and can’t afford film, especially in LF and ULF) and combine film techniques and digital imaging processes. I’m currently attempting to gather and publish (Web) a guide on which papers do what, but I digress. It is sad Kodachrome is going and we shall have one less tool in our bags to work with, it was a defining constant. Digital is digital and film is film, wether one is better is a mute point as both have and are evolving and both are tools that need to be learned. Most important is that one must learn to see the world around using different formats ( look at the ground glass of a 16x 20 ULF vs the 2.25 in back of a digital,oops lol) Maybe one day we will be able to dial in our favorite film specs to our fancy sensors but until then Cest la’vie, there will be differences. I believe a good photographer knows how to live and work in both worlds , I do.
george

By: cidereye

cidereye — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:11:42 +0000

I do hope Kodak actually do this Stephen, I mean it’s in their interests as much as anyone’s to promote the quality of Film v digital after all. I hate the “misinformation” being spread on quality that is fooling the majority of people right now.

I was with a few friends the other day and as usual had a camera on me. When I pulled out my Contax G1 there were gasps as to what a pretty, cool looking camera they were seeing and then one asked after I took a shot where the LCD screen was so that they could see the shot I’d just taken?!? Comments of “Film??? Can you still buy that old stuff?” abounded with several of them thinking I was crazy for still using it. I sure told them the facts straight and proper as you will imagine!

By: figitalrevolution

figitalrevolution — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:08:03 +0000

I also read an article in The Wall Street Journal that said the same that this is proof that digital is better than film… total crap and misinformation. In my meeting at Kodak I said that there needs to be a new platform for information on film and digital that does not get into which is better as this is a useless discussion that gets us no where but rather a platform that allows for both to exist as they are just different and each has its own strengths… they (kodak) were very receptive to this idea.

Cheers-
Stephen

By: James B.

James B. — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:21:25 +0000

On the topic of your previous rant on misinformation in the media, the local news in my area did a story on Kodachrome a few minutes ago. They used the retirement of Kodachrome (along with a passing reference to polaroid) as a signal of the death of film photography. They then followed up that story with one on how digital cameras were totally the best thing ever.

I chuckled on the inside, then wept a little because I realized that some people will actually take that drek seriously.