R.I.P. Good Photos

[the_jimmy_james]

Well, Kodak is discontinuing Kodachrome film, a name that's been synonymous with color photographs since 1935.

Considered the first commercially viable subtractive color film, Kodachrome introduced color photography to a mass market and revolutionized the way we took photos.

Somewhere in the late 1990s, someone decided that the CCD would be a good replacement for film. Unfortunately this is not so. Sure, I've gotten some good pix with a digital camera, but just none of them have that certain special something that can be had from film.

Unfortunately I see this as being a symbolic nail in the coffin for film photography. Rest in peace, Kodachrome... you'll be missed.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/22/kodak-ending-kodachrome-run-after-74-years-still-cant-get-that/

http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2009/06/22/20090622biz-KodakFilm0622.html

 

[Volsung1]

I know what you mean and I share your pain...

Thus passes an era...

 

[the_jimmy_james]

I was just trying to take some photos. Natural light in a common bedroom.

Damn digital camera blurred and fuzzed out. The images are grainy and lack definition.

Oh wait... I know. Everybody owns $20,000 worth of lighting equipment, right?

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Update: The photos turned out really shitty.

 

[dentrag1231]

But... what about all those kodak moments that will go unkodaked? 🙁

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

"Mama don't take my kodachrome awayyyyy!"

That is indeed sad, sad news. There's a certain lush "something" to film. A richness. Depth.
I especially will miss movies "shot-on-film".

 

[kopfhorer1]

I still remember the first time I ever pulled a roll of color film out of the developing tank in the bathroom darkroom in my parents' house. (I'm getting kind of weepy here...). Sad to see an old, familiar buddy go the way of the tintype. OTOH, I'd much rather spend an hour processing a birthday party's worth of digital images for CD burnage or e-mailing than 2-4 hours in a totally dark safelight-less darkroom making JUST ONE color enlargement. The bottom line is it takes less time to go digital. Yes, digital cameras have many bugs which have yet to be squashed, but the first roll film photos were kind of funky in a beta-technology kind of way.

I was just trying to take some photos. Natural light in a common bedroom.

Damn digital camera blurred and fuzzed out. The images are grainy and lack definition.

Oh wait... I know. Everybody owns $20,000 worth of lighting equipment, right?

I've had “focus failure” on some low-light shots with my Canon Powershot A-610 (an “obsolete model”, but WTF). That's what comes of having a computer do a photographer's job of focusing I guess! The key seems to be (1) put something in the center of the image for the camera to lock in on (you can always partly press the shutter button and re-compose) and (2) brace the camera against something for long exposures, like a stop sign pole, the roof of your car, set it on a table, get one of those little plastic mini-tripods or (heaven forfend) a full-size 'pod.

As for K-Chrome, even during the film era, most photographers, amateur and pro alike shot color negative film (Kodacolor, etc for the amateurs and Ektacolor, Fuji Professionsl, etc. for the pros). Kodachrome and other slide films were niche products for people who showed slides with a projector or who used slide film to make color separations for printing.