Death in the family

[Darrin]

i wish to announce the passing of my best friend, kodachrome. Yesterday Kodak announced the cessation of production of the best film ever made. There never has been, nor will there ever be, anything that can touch the sharpness, color rendition, or longevity of kodachrome.

RIP

Kodachrome

1934 - 2009

 

[Misled]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcR_LvorN_0

 

[xtm]

Velvia could be next

 

[IPT]

I got a ton of MF Velvia sitting in the freezer . It'll probably sit there forever (though I did sell all of my 35mm Velvia and mailers about 2 yrs ago). Film of any type is on borrowed time. It's not eco friendly, no instant gratification, and for the most part digital is superior in most (if not all?) image qualities.

Technology marches on. For better or worse.

 

[Darrin]

"and for the most part digital is superior in most (if not all?) image qualities. "

Since when? I do it for a living... and I think digitial is the worst thing ever to happen to photography... I shoot 8x10 negatives.. you cannot get anywhere near the quallity.. you would need a sensor that is 8x10 inches...

I shoot medium format... I still have a bigger image to work with... still vastly superior to digital..

and my nikon? I dont have to spend hours behind the computer adjusting my exposures... film sees the world in a much nicer range than digital.. you can over expose and under expose film by as much as 2 stops and still get an image you can work wiht...

digital cannot be over exposed by as much as 1/10 of an fstop before loosing quality..

sorry... but i've pretty much lost my job because of digital... I am not a happy camper//.


d

 

[BlueCorn]

Digital didn't ruin photography; it just raised the bar.

"Good enough" doesn't sell anymore.

 

[IPT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15257383#post15257383 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Darrin
"and for the most part digital is superior in most (if not all?) image qualities. "

Since when? I do it for a living... and I think digitial is the worst thing ever to happen to photography... I shoot 8x10 negatives.. you cannot get anywhere near the quallity.. you would need a sensor that is 8x10 inches...

I shoot medium format... I still have a bigger image to work with... still vastly superior to digital..

and my nikon? I dont have to spend hours behind the computer adjusting my exposures... film sees the world in a much nicer range than digital.. you can over expose and under expose film by as much as 2 stops and still get an image you can work wiht...

digital cannot be over exposed by as much as 1/10 of an fstop before loosing quality..

sorry... but i've pretty much lost my job because of digital... I am not a happy camper//.


d

Hey Darrin - I understand how it would be upsetting for you. Digital shook up a lot of things. My family used to have a camera shop years ago. The big shops wiped that out. B&H had prices retail that beat what my family could get wholesale. Every era has an end.

As for quality, I imagine that there are already large format sensors available. Maybe not affordable, but neither were the original digital rigs at even 2MP. Digital MF backs have been around and "relatively" affordable for pros for quite some time. I ahve done lots of Cibachrome printing in my day and I MUCH prefer the digital relm. In fact I was scanning my 6x9 slides and doing the digital darkroom way before I had to. I prefered the workflow. Travelling years ago I was Galen Rowels place and for kicks tried to pull his 8x10s and guess if it was a digital print or traditional (of course this will vary with papers) but I was amazed at how many times I was unable to tell or guessed wrong.

Just my opinion, and I am sorry and feel for you that this 'movement" has had such a profound and negative impact on you. That sucks, no matter what any other gains or loses might be for the public at large.

 

[xtm]

Bye Kodachrome.. Hello Sandisk Extreme IV!

 

[IPT]

funny..

Retro's never been easier. Little Monochrome filtering and maybe a touch of sepia .