Visit our Popular Forums

jacarape · 07-29-2009, 05:28 PM

I haven't been here for a while, but as this is a site with folks with the most kind of hearts I cam back today to see what the dudes and dudettes are up.

I'm kind of bumming that the film photo lovers haven't posted a thread about the discontinuance of KR64.

Without a doubt, Kodachrome has been my most favorite slide film of all time, it really is a beauty. I see the world in Kodachome.

It is still available, but there will not be another manufacturing run and processing will not be available after 2010.

Grab a roll, shoot it and look at a 74 year history that comes alive. You won't get another chance.

100GX has also been discontinued. A fine E6 that has always done well with what I like to photograph.

I attached a photo shot on KR64 with a mechanical rangefinder, 135mm lens at f2.8.

Celebrate and say goodbye to an old friend.

michael

85MH325 · 07-29-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away...

I shot chrome in Leica M-series bodies for years... it's truly the end of an era!

Roger

warbler5 · 07-29-2009, 07:28 PM

After discovering that K64 was still available, I bought some....I hadn't even finished shooting it all before the news came out that it was to be discontinued! Now, I am trying out some Kodak 100VS. Any thoughts about this film?

Even though I shoot mainly digital, I am sure going to miss K64....

85MH325 · 07-29-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warbler5

Now, I am trying out some Kodak 100VS. Any thoughts about this film?

Sorry, I haven't shot a roll of color film in years... I'm all digital too.

Roger

casarodante · 07-29-2009, 08:55 PM

I remember my father ALWAYS shooting with Kodachrome. He tried Ektachrome but immediately went back. You can see some of them at: Roger's Airstream History

warbler5 · 07-29-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caadoptees

I remember my father ALWAYS shooting with Kodachrome. He tried Ektachrome but immediately went back. You can see some of them at: Roger's Airstream History

Thanks so much, Roger, for posting the above link to your family photos of your Airstream adventures! I thoroughly enjoyed them. I have been to many of those same places (tent camping) during the mid-1970's, and I remember them looking just like your photos. For instance, I recall the Banff Campground with the street lights....

warbler5 · 07-29-2009, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 85MH325

Sorry, I haven't shot a roll of color film in years... I'm all digital too.

Roger, I hadn't shot any film either....the recent acquisition of a Nikon F2 Photomic (purchased from my neighbor who decided to go digital) got me back into film....but, not to the extent that I used to shoot it. I had been away from film for so long, I was LOST when I went in to buy a few rolls!

Paul Mayeux · 07-29-2009, 09:21 PM

Roger, those slides are just super. Thanks for sharing these.

I'm a Kodachrome fan myself, just got 7 rolls back from Dwayne's. I too shoot it with a Leica rangefinder. Everytime I shoot it and get it back, project it on the screen, I wonder how digital ever got a foothold.

tpi · 07-29-2009, 09:58 PM

I have numerous carousels of Kodachrome slides. Even though I have nice digital equipment (Canon 5D), when projected the Kodachrome slides are the nicest looking pictures I have taken.

The latest digital SLRs appear to have as much or more resolution and dynamic range as Kodachrome, the limitation is the computer monitor or projector, both in dynamic range, and in resolution. Hang on to your digital files, someday there will be superior projectors and monitors. Whether or not the projections will be as satisfying as old slide film, that remains to be seen.

And thanks for posting the family pictures. I too enjoyed them.

casarodante · 07-29-2009, 10:16 PM

I am glad everyone enjoyed the slides, I enjoyed being in them.

(I was normally the short one)

There are always other similar arguments. Vinyl (analog) vs CD (digital). Tubes (warmer?) vs solid-state. All part of the march of technology.

I do love that you can take sooo many digital shots you have a much better chance of a good shot. Conversely this makes you less selective of what you take a shot of. When you had 'limited' resources and couldn't just burn through the film.

I am glad that I have lived in both 'eras'.

ROBERTSUNRUS · 07-29-2009, 10:50 PM

Hi, I gave up on film cameras years ago. Trying to get good shots, waiting for the roll to come to the end, and disappointed when the processor screwed up my negatives. So my lovely Konica T-3 SLR, all of my lenses, and the rest of my 35 mm collection got packed away. I have a few non-working film cameras on display in my house just for kicks. I like the fact that I can shoot, delete, modify and print my own pictures if I want to.

We recently purchased a new turn table to pay our old vinyl on. Sounds better than we expected.

The young people have no idea what we are talking about.

Soyboy · 07-30-2009, 10:03 AM

Kind of said, like an era ending. I shot a lot of 64 over the years, like many others, it was my favorite. I think it was more fun shooting with film cameras, I really liked my old Canon FTBn. That said, while I don't feel the same "warmth" (whatever that is) towards my digital cameras, I love the ability to shoot all I want and not have to worry about processing fees etc. However, I think I tend to spend less time on a shot as it is so easy to shot another and another etc. etc., I think that makes me a bit lazy and takes a bit of the fun out of it. I am glad that the DSLRs are becoming more affordable though.

warbler5 · 07-30-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caadoptees

There are always other similar arguments. Vinyl (analog) vs CD (digital). Tubes (warmer?) vs solid-state. All part of the march of technology.

I am glad that I have lived in both 'eras'.

I am also glad to have lived in both eras.... We still have vinyl (which is making a comeback....), and my husband has a small business repairing tube gear, both old and new. Time will only tell if film will rebound....

dlb435 · 07-30-2009, 06:30 PM

Yes, all the great old films are going the way of the Dodo. I just got the old dark room cranked up to teach a youngster about film. This will probably be the last film he will ever shoot. Everything has gone digital. It looks good, but it's not film. There is no personality to digital.

crazylev · 07-30-2009, 07:33 PM

It's not the film or digital, it's the photograph and the photographer.

You could take a beautiful photograph using an oatmeal container with a pin-hole, and it wouldn't matter a rats-a** how it was done.

The benefits far out weigh the negatives (no pun intended) and I'm not going into that.

Is it inconceivable that you could capture something as beautiful as the very first post to this thread with just a film camera? No. As lovely as that image is, right place/right time my friends.

I don't miss having my knuckles buried in alkalis, acids, and other toxic chemicals. If you've not done this, than you are lucky.

I to loved Kodachrome and shot many a brick of the stuff myself, but I don't miss the analog days at all. Get over it and keep putting the camera to your eye and business as usual. Technology has only made it easier to experiment and find your own voice with out the expense and environmental damage.

Jonathan

ROBERTSUNRUS · 07-30-2009, 10:50 PM

Hi, I have one concern with my digital cameras; I can no longer make, take, or shoot double exposures. I made some very interesting pictures with double exposures. If anyone knows a way to do this let me know.

warbler5 · 07-30-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb435

Yes, all the great old films are going the way of the Dodo. I just got the old dark room cranked up to teach a youngster about film. This will probably be the last film he will ever shoot. Everything has gone digital. It looks good, but it's not film. There is no personality to digital.

This sounds sooooooo like the comments we made about CD's vs vinyl albums when the CD first came out (~1984). I think film may be around for awhile....it's finding someone to process it that may be the problem. For that reason, those that know how to process B&W will be the keepers of a lost art!

85MH325 · 07-31-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBERTSUNRUS

Hi, I have one concern with my digital cameras; I can no longer make, take, or shoot double exposures. I made some very interesting pictures with double exposures. If anyone knows a way to do this let me know.

It's all done in post-processing now... two exposures, overlays and transparancy levels.

Roger

casarodante · 07-31-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 85MH325

It's all done in post-processing now... two exposures, overlays and transparancy levels.

Roger

This is what is done in HDR photography. Check out Rich Charpentier's image here for an example of HDR. He is a fellow Airstreamer that does HDR a lot and has a photo gallery in Prescott AZ.

jacarape · 08-03-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazylev

It's not the film or digital, it's the photograph and the photographer.

You could take a beautiful photograph using an oatmeal container with a pin-hole, and it wouldn't matter a rats-a** how it was done.

The benefits far out weigh the negatives (no pun intended) and I'm not going into that.

Is it inconceivable that you could capture something as beautiful as the very first post to this thread with just a film camera? No. As lovely as that image is, right place/right time my friends.

I don't miss having my knuckles buried in alkalis, acids, and other toxic chemicals. If you've not done this, than you are lucky.

I to loved Kodachrome and shot many a brick of the stuff myself, but I don't miss the analog days at all. Get over it and keep putting the camera to your eye and business as usual. Technology has only made it easier to experiment and find your own voice with out the expense and environmental damage.

Jonathan

Hi, actually right place right time isn't very applicable. I sat there on grass playing with my doggie in the spring, I set up a Leica with a 135mm Elmarit-M, set to f2.8 and waited. I slept, scratched and also scratched the dog. The humming bird came around so I just shot while lying on the ground, never looking at the VF. If I had a dSLR, the photos would have been really nice. (Except I have haven't seen much glass that come close to Leica in quality of the OOF areas. Trying not to say Bokeh here.)

Film has a quality to me that is tangible, I like it. To compare film or digital (I'm not sure why digital was even mentioned in a film thread) is like starting a gas/charcoal/wood BBQ thread, circular and irrelevant.

I have a beater Hasselblad 500cm, I don't need batteries or a computer to take a picture. I have a Cambo 4x5, so I can make an awesome contact print without a computer.

I don't want a dSLR, hell, with a 35 Lux ASPH and a 75 Lux, I can't afford one! Not to mention a few 10s of grand more in Zeiss glass and Contax cameras

Our great great grandchildren will be debating, "I can't find a real dog since the robot dogs came out!"

With C-41, get it close to a stop (or two) and you have it just about right, Sunny 16 and no batteries no multi-segmented color corrected smile detection algorithm.

For my next trick, here's a photo I took on C-41, and a 1953 Contax range finder with a 35mm Biogon. If I were a real photog, I would have chosen another camera, but I like what I was able to capture with a machine built before I was born. (Metered with the original selenium cell that works, sometimes.)

The benefits don't out weigh the negatives, but you did bring that up.