Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 26, 2012 23:35:40 GMT -5
Just found this nice collection of high quality Kodachromes from the 40s. www.shorpy.com/Large_Format_KodachromesFantastic pictures, I think. I couldn't imagine, that color photography has been possible in this quality at that time
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 27, 2012 1:58:32 GMT -5
We had a similar thread before you joined us , Berndt. Such photos are well worth seeing again though: thanks for the link.
In terms of quality of colour there has been a general improvement over the years in each medium. If you google "early colour photography" you come up with some quite remarkable examples from an even earlier age. The only problem might be that they have been photoshopped to improve their appearance. Digital certainly gets the pictures out for all to see, bur I'm sure that seeing the originals gives better viewing.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 27, 2012 3:05:22 GMT -5
I am not sure of course, but I think, they kept the colors at least close to the originals ( never really possible if scanning and digitising anyway, I know ). Some easy color correction or changings would have made those pictures look even better, but they obviously didn't do it. But of course ... we are looking at 4x5 inch slides here That's the high end photography, I think. That picture looks so fantastic: www.shorpy.com/node/7031 The tonality and details. I would have never thought of 1942, looking at it. But my favorites are actually those typical Kodochrome color ones: www.shorpy.com/node/3552?size=_original Brilliant stuff !!! I woud still say, that it has been one of the biggest "crimes" in the history of photography, that Kodachrome has become discontinued. BTW, Dave ... leaving this thread for a moment, you might check out the teaser of this new movie: www.barakasamsara.com/Entirely shot on 70 mm film. Film is still a breathtaking medium ... in the 40s and still today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2012 10:36:10 GMT -5
I don't think any other color FILM matched Kodachrome for richness or durability. Those early Kodachome shots don't look to me like they have been "improved" much. As someone pointed out, they are 4x5 not 35mm. I have Kodachomes from the early 50s that look like the day they were shot while Ektachromes and Agfachromes from the 1970s have lost much or their snap.
W.
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Apr 28, 2012 3:55:55 GMT -5
I used kodakchrome in the 60s quite a bit, those that I store in a dry box, the colours are all still there, truely a remarkeable film.
Hye
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 28, 2012 4:51:01 GMT -5
I can't say I have noticed any fading on any of the reversal film I have. What I have noticed is what I take to be fungus on some that haven't been stored in ideal situations. The Kodachrome if anything has fared worse in that regard.
As regards "richness of colour" some of course felt that Kodachrome was falsely bright and much preferred the rather more muted appearance of other films.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 28, 2012 6:52:08 GMT -5
What I like most is, that the Kodachrome could realize very vibrant colors without touching the skin tones. I think, that makes its unique and always recognizable look. If I compare the Kodachrome to ( or with ? ) two modern popular Kodak films, the Portra and E100VS, the Portra preserves excellent skin tones, but isn't really vibrant over all and on the E100VS, everything is vibrant. Therefore the Kodachrome has been quite extraordinary, I think. There is nothing like it ... not even in the digital world. I saw so many "Kodachrome emulations" and none of them came even close to the real thing.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 28, 2012 8:10:09 GMT -5
The big trouble and the big advantage of Kodachrome was the method of processing. Results were uniform as it had to go a Kodak lab, unlike the Ektachrome E4 film that a local lab processed as a colour negative film. On the downside was the fact that no change to the film speed rating could be made. The biggest disadvantage has, of course, come to light in the last year. Kodachrome can no longer be processed. A rather big failing in it, especially when you acquire a dozen process paid 36exp films just too late to get them processed.
No emulation ever fully replicates the original. Personally I have no wish to have a Kodachrome substitute. Things should move on. That is why we got Kodachrome in the first place.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 28, 2012 9:09:01 GMT -5
Well, Dave ... I am not against progress or that things should move on, but it's sad, if other things need to disappear for that. I like variety. Even if we do have digital cameras now, wouldn't it be sad, if somebody would come and through all film cameras away ?
I would definitely use the Kodachrome, if it would still be around ... not always, but sometimes, for achieving a certain look, I would prefer for a certain picture. Same as cross-processing film or using other techniques.
I think, there is a longing for that ( not only in me ). You can see that in the increasing popularity of those many iPhone apps, providing some kind of vintage or "lomo" look. Many people became tired of the always same sharp and realistic look of a digital picture. What does not mean, that they wouldn't appreciate it at another time.
The magic of photography is variety - the many ways to take a picture of the same thing. One of them has been taken away from us ... and I think, it's sad ... although I can understand it ( up to a certain point ) and you explained it very well. It has been the special processing of the Kodachrome. However ... other rare films ( B/W slide film for example ) are still available ( or again ). It also requires a special way of processing and only a few labs in the world are doing it ... but they still exist and if people want to use this type of film for what reasons ever, they can use it. That's what I would have wished for the Kodachrome as well. If Kodak does not intend to produce this film ever again, why don't they "donate" the patent to some motivated indy people ? When Agfa went bankrupt, former employers refurbished the old machines ... and they are producing film again - obviously succesfully against all odds, because they still have problems to produce the pre-ordered capacity ... even though we are living in digital times now.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 28, 2012 14:49:59 GMT -5
Kodachrome is not the only film to have gone. I'm pretty sure that I saw somewhere that Kodak have stopped production of all reversal film, or will be doing so soon.
The trouble for Kodachrome though is that it's not just a case of producing the film, but providing the processing plants too. I can't see why anyone would want to produce it again unless they have pots of money to spend and waste.
Agfa: it's the same with Morgan sports cars. you make a good product that enthusiasts want to buy and they do buy it: there is a permanent waiting list. However the amount made and sold is peanuts compared to the major firms. It's a good niche market but there is not the demand for it to be more than that. The day production of Morgan cars exceeds its advanced sales is the day the company starts to fail.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 28, 2012 22:21:17 GMT -5
I don't disagree with that, Dave ... and you said it right: A niche market. That's what film has become in general. However, there is still a demand and if Kodak will stop producing films ( what is really sad, not only regarding the Kodachrome ), others will do it instead. The obvious winner seems to be Fujifilm, because they already thought about raising their prices. Also the lomography company has released a lot of new film types during the last years. I think, they are producing app. 10 different films under their own label meanwhile.
I think, I also said it on another thread, but I think, the fall of Kodak is mainly a problem of missmanagement. They missed the chance for making people excited about film. They didn't do anything for promoting their products ( they just do it for their motion picture films ). Others, like the lomography guys, understood it better and tried to give film a "new face". Some kind of "indy touch". It's all about marketing strategies. The big guys like Canon or Nikon want to make you feel like a professional photographer if buying an expensive DSLR and those lomography guys want to make people feel like an artist if using film with a crappy toy camera. But the lomography community already became a home for just "normal" film photographers as well. They have a huge web community, where people are showing and sharing their pictures, writing reviews about films, tips for experimental photography or vintage cameras. They have a lot of competitions and exhibitions in cooporation with famous brands and magazines, publishing photo books ( like the lomo city guides ) with amazing pictures and many more things.
Visiting their website, you can read something on the top like: "In the last 24 hours there were 5,479 photos uploaded, 1,732 messages written, 994 comments made and 31,821 likes given." I would call that a lively community. The websites are provided in 24 different languages.
And what did Kodak do ? Nothing. Their homepage looks dead boring and and I haven't heard of any activities for promoting their film products ... and they are a huge company, which would have had some budget for that. Business is tough. Things need to be advertised, people need to be reached ... otherwise, you can't sell anything.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 29, 2012 22:48:26 GMT -5
berndt, "They missed the chance for making people excited about film. They didn't do anything for promoting their products ..." The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. Shakespear's Julius Caesar Was there ever a company that did more for film and photography than Kodak? From George Eastman's invention of roll film in 1888 until a few short years ago -for over 100 years The Eastman Kodak Co. kept the world thrilled with its inventions and developments and new products and by its constant, always tasteful advertising. Rather than slap them in the face for faltering we should slap them on the back and say "Thank you. Well done." and support them in whatever new endeavors they undertake. I am still very fond of the old yellow and red and of the company that brought so very much meaning to a meaningless word. Mickey
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 30, 2012 1:10:23 GMT -5
Mickey, I agree with all of your beautiful words. I would just wish, that they wouldn't need to be a R.I.P. speech
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 30, 2012 2:51:55 GMT -5
Mickey, I agree with all of your beautiful words. I would just wish, that they wouldn't need to be a R.I.P. speech To quote that world famous linguist, Yogi Berra, "It ain't over till it's over." [/font] Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 10:31:01 GMT -5
I know for a fact that there was a time when National Geographic would not even consider a story not shot with Kodachrome. When one of their photographers came here to shoot a story on the Basque Community, they air freighted in six huge electronic strobes t6hat were mounted in the rafters of a gymnasium where the Basques were holding a dance. Every time the photographer touched off those strobes, it was like a solar flare. But he needed that much horsepower in order to use Kodachrome.
I have to admit my favorite all-time film was Agfachrome, which has a "warmer" cast that Kodachrome. And my Agfachome shots have weathered the passage of time much better than my Ektachome slides.
W.
|
|