They finally took your Kodachrome away

[greatbear]

Here's a bit of news that left me wistful and a bit sad, but at the same time there's so much pure awesome to it that I could not help but smile.

The Kodak company recently discontinued it's iconic Kodachrome film, a mainstay of color photography and film-making for decades. The last roll of film was requested by professional photographer Steve McCurry, who then loaded it into his Nikon (of course) and headed for a six week trip in order to make the best use of the mere 36 exposures on the roll. The planning alone for that trip took Steve nine months.

How cool is it to be entrusted with a piece of history as well as to be able to make that history unique to yourself? I've long been a photography enthusiast, and with the advent of digital photography, I found it way too easy to enjoy the hobby. However, I think back to when I would shoot film, and each photo taken was a wish that I had the composition, exposure and lighting correct, and except for the few times I actually ventured into a darkroom to create my own prints and slides, my hope that my wish was granted happened when I opened the envelope. Digital photography completely spoiled me, and I can barely imagine the pressure Steve McCurry must feel each of the mere 36 times he presses that shutter button.

I've only shot a few rolls of Kodachrome in my lifetime, but my father used to take lots slides in my earliest years and before. Even to this day each of those slides is still as vibrant and full of detail as they were 50+ years ago. Digital might make things so much easier for the photographer, but it's the resulting product which stands the test of time. Will a hard drive filled with files, stored for 50 years in an attic be usable, much less readable? Will the inkjet paper and ink look anywhere near as good in that time? While digital has given us the spoils of nearly ubiquitous availability and ease of use, will it even begin to have the endurance of film such as Kodachrome? I'm betting not so much. Thanks to Kodachrome, for making all the world a sunny day, for decades past and those to come.

Paul Simon - Kodachrome

Comments

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

While the slides might look vibrant now, they won't in 50 years--even if they don't physically change at all. People's perceptions in 2060 of what makes 'good photos' will be different, and these slides will look like 20th century Kodachrome slides. That, in and of itself, will make them appear dated.

Also: NIST special publication 500-252 is a nice guide to archival storage. It was updated last year, afaik

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

Well, of course. Those flat little plastic slides and films will look quaint next to the interactive, 3D holographic moving images we'll have at that time. ;)

I won't have to worry, though, I won't be around to make the comparison. :-/

Thinking to myself, it does drive the point home about the difference between physical vs. digital media. Are we setting ourselves up for a great, interactive future where all information is readily accessible? Or will it be an elaborate house of cards that can collapse at any moment? I know I can't trust a commercial entity to store my digital assets, they can disappear at a moment's notice, some catastrophe can wipe them out, etc. The closest thing to securing the best storage would be something akin to the National Archives. Granted, my shoebox full of photos can be destroyed in a fire, lost to theft, damaged, whatever. But this is simply my collection. How many memories got wiped out with the collapse of net properties like AOL Hometown, Geocities, etc?

I have boxes full of old media containing various stuff, and nothing immediately available to read them at a moment's notice. Things like Bernoulli disks, Zip/Jaz media, floppies, old Exabyte tape carts, Syquest carts and other stuff. I also have at least one remaining drive for each of these, and a couple remaining retired PCs with these drives installed. Problem is, I have no idea if the media is still viable or if any of the drives or computers will work when I need them. It's a crap shoot. I did migrate a lot of data into the newer hardware with each upgrade and kept the backups going, dragging them with me with each technology jump, but not all of it. But that shoebox full of slides, it's still as viable today. I can pop them into the film scanner and migrate them into the virtual, but the physical slides are their best backup, as long as they are taken care of.

[maxauburn.livejournal.com]

I have 50 year old Kodachrome slides that still look great!

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

It's amazing, isn't it?

[maxauburn.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is!

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

they might last longer than E6 - it's the additive process means the dyes are added - it's usually unused dye couplers with E6 or bleach/dev not being removed properly (like silver being left in the neg and not converted/leeched with B&W) which is one of the reasons for degradation over time.

I think - Wiki confirms this (although in darkness - not under light like projection!), years since I studied this though. It's the reason the older colour negs/prints still look good also.

[meddler-inc.livejournal.com]

I never used the film, but I can't help feel a little misty-eyed over this...I would love to see the photos he took.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

Apparently National Geographic will be covering it at some point, and the Eastman museum will have the actual film and will undoubtedly have some sort of exhibit.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

I've heard they were going to stop making Kodachrome but that doesn't stop people from trying their hand at film, just won't be able to do slides is the thing, heck, even Kodak has stopped making the carousel projectors themselves although one can find replacement trays new from outside manufacturers and can still find companies that make the replacement bulbs

I'd be interested in seeing what he shot with that final roll of Kodachrome.

Love that Paul Simon song BTW.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

Even Polaroid brought back the instant film camera recently in a small form factor. Other manufacturers will have some sort of comparable film for a while, and there will always be C-41 process stuff for the rest of us.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Very true, I had read about the new Polaroid instant camera.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

Slide film won't totally go away - why?

Cross Process. Digital doesn't have the fun crazy colours or randomness, or look - despite what anyone says. You need old slide film to do it...so I think at least with portraiture/art students etc you will get some made. Also slide is still used in some markets for studio work although that's changing too, surprisingly fast.

I have a polaroid back for my SQ-Ai medium format Bronica, can't get it to work though.

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

I have SOOOOOOOO much Kodachrome it's insane. I'd say easily 1,000 slides around everywhere. Mostly of early travels to the Americas, and some of Korea and Japan.

They used an odd additive process… the colour was in layers, which is why they only had a couple of places that could develop it (and it was craaaazy toxic).

[franklanguage.livejournal.com]

True; it was almost like dye-transfer process. I only used it a few times because it was such a slow film, but it made a gorgeous slide.

I actually have a 2 1/4 Rolleiflex camera I had to have…and I've never shot a single picture with it! (I had an older one I did shoot a lot of pix with in college, so I had the idea I was going to continue using this newer one.)

Digital does make things too easy, though—and I don't even have access to a darkroom anymore.

[greatbearmd.livejournal.com]

It'd be cool to see some of those pictures. I have no idea where mine are at the moment, most of my Kodachrome shots were during a time I was taking photography classes, and as such are kinda experimental and artsy in nature. However, that does not imply that the shots are any good. On the contrary... lol

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

I think at this point, scanning them in would be the biggest difficulty. A proper slide scanner is $$$, and not really something I'd use more than once. I should however, dig them up.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

the Kodachrome process was earlier than E6 subtractive - was closer to early colour processes.

But yeah both processes aren't exactly enviro-friendly but the Kodachrome process was pretty evil apparently.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

oh Kodachrome has ended? That's sad.

What killed it is that it's not E6, it's an earlier process (additive I think) which is why it looks different to other films - but also meant only really Kodak could develop it.

I used to shoot a LOT of Kodachrome in my student days - I have a load of the slides, especially of my work. I liked the reddish cast, even though it wasn't fashionable.

[delko.livejournal.com]

My mom used to work for Eastman Kodak as a pre-splicer in the darkrooms. The employee cafeteria looked down on Soldier Field and they would let families come in on Sundays to watch the Chicago Bears play football.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

A terrific post, a terrific tribute! I am really saddened by this news ... Will we find out that digital photography doesn't stand the test of time? I had slides from 1955-1966 converted to digital; I've made a couple of enlargements from those photos and the color is so much better than the it is from my digital pictures.

HUGS!