Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,675   Posts: 1,481,941   Online: 1085
      
Page 29 of 50 FirstFirst ... 192324252627282930313233343539 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 493
  1. #281

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    The "ditch it" option is the best...

    Quote Originally Posted by darkroom View Post
    NO
    Actually, yes. Reality frequently sucks, but it's real. Best to deal with it in a mature fashion.

    The primary "reason" being used to press Stephen into processing Kodachrome is some Space Shuttle film. Not exposed frames of a deceased person of whom no other pictures exist. Untold numbers of still images and feet of motion pictures were made of the Shuttle in all phases of its life cycle and are carefully preserved. Ditching is no real loss.

    Please note that, except for snapshots and article illustrations, I haven't exposed a frame of color since Kodachrome 25 and reliable Kodak processing for it ceased to be available nearly two decades ago. No one would be more happy than me if a magic wand could be waved and the world returned to happy Kodachrome times. It's not going to happen. Like most realities, that one sucks. But it's real. The healthiest way to deal with it is acceptance. Either embrace Fuji reversal film (while it lasts), color negative film (while it lasts), digital color or, like me, concentrate on black and white.

  2. #282
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,707
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by darkroom View Post
    NO
    Ok then, do it yourself. You cannot expect others to do it for you!

    PE

  3. #283

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Actually, yes. Reality frequently sucks, but it's real. Best to deal with it in a mature fashion.

    The primary "reason" being used to press Stephen into processing Kodachrome is some Space Shuttle film. Not exposed frames of a deceased person of whom no other pictures exist. Untold numbers of still images and feet of motion pictures were made of the Shuttle in all phases of its life cycle and are carefully preserved. Ditching is no real loss.

    Please note that, except for snapshots and article illustrations, I haven't exposed a frame of color since Kodachrome 25 and reliable Kodak processing for it ceased to be available nearly two decades ago. No one would be more happy than me if a magic wand could be waved and the world returned to happy Kodachrome times. It's not going to happen. Like most realities, that one sucks. But it's real. The healthiest way to deal with it is acceptance. Either embrace Fuji reversal film (while it lasts), color negative film (while it lasts), digital color or, like me, concentrate on black and white.
    the main significance with the shuttle film was that it documented the last shuttle launches in history, the only problem was that kodachrome processing ceased before the last shuttle launches.

  4. #284

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzoomed View Post
    the main significance with the shuttle film was that it documented the last shuttle launches in history, the only problem was that kodachrome processing ceased before the last shuttle launches.
    Every one of the shuttle launches, including the "last ones," were massively documented with stills and motion, all of which is well preserved. That "main significance" is, in fact, not significant.

  5. #285
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,707
    Images
    65
    Sal, I would like to point out that a lot of the photographic documentation of the early launches and even the moon landing were destroyed in some sort of effort to make room for new stuff. I have been sending some of my shots to the University of Central Florida in an effort to recover lost documentation. It seems that NASA and the USAF are not as diligent than we thought. So, private documentation may be a saving grace here.

    Unfortunately, this puts me on the other side for a change, as I disagree with the entire "save Kodachrome" issue. He should have shot the stuff on E6 film.

    PE

  6. #286
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    454
    I loved Kodachrome. It died for a reason.

    To shoot on a film, for which there is no processing, seems fairly odd to me.

    If it were really financially practicable, someone would go through the effort to do it. The fact that no one has, speaks volumes. It is one thing to do it, to say it has been done. It is another to spend the time and money on a dead end quest.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  7. #287

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Sal, I would like to point out that a lot of the photographic documentation of the early launches and even the moon landing were destroyed in some sort of effort to make room for new stuff...So, private documentation may be a saving grace here...
    Perhaps for early launches, but "the last shuttle launches" were without doubt documented digitally. I think electronic storage has become so compact and inexpensive lately that it's very unlikely NASA is erasing things like those records to enable re-use of the media they're recorded on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ...He should have shot the stuff on E6 film...
    Without question. Shooting Kodachrome after Dwayne's terminated the K-14 line (as claimed in post #127) was, to be charitable, poor planning.

  8. #288

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,740
    I had contacted folks at NASA for a year to be able to shoot the last launch on Kodachrome, just like I shot the last Burning Man on Kodachrome, the last presidential inauguration on Kodachrome, etc. And when I saw the launch date move past December 2010, I scrapped the idea. It would have never dawned on me to risk a lot of time, money and effort on shooting KR-64 once Dwayne's shut down, I feel bad this young man did, the risk will likely never pay off.

    I also got rather excited at coming up with $1,000-$2,000 to shoot a few more rolls of Kodachrome on a topic within my project that did not get traction in time, but a few pages back will show that my excitement and "Re-Starting" of that topic was also, ill fated, my fresh-ish last 60 rolls are in vacuum sealed bags in my film freezer and will likely stay there.

    Stone asked me not long ago if I would try to come up with my own "Witches Brew" to soup the film in. I said no, because I am not a lab guy, I am the photographer who keeps the lab guy in business. Not one of the famous Kodachrome shooters I know who are still alive would even dream of putting in the time, money and effort to soup a film they would rather pay someone well to do...not ONE folks.

    That is because they are photographers.....this is not black and white which is as basic as you can get and the photographer can often benefit greatly in having control of that soup, it is very complex color and not many photographers who made a name for them selves in fully exploiting Kodachrome's virtues would *dream* of tackling it, they have better things to do and so do I.

    By the way, speaking of one of the greatest Kodachrome shooters still alive, I am taking his book publishing workshop in reaching the final stages in putting out my own Kodachrome book....that is what my future in Kodachrome is, a nice book.

    Kodachrome is gone people...if someone comes up with a process to offer us photographers, some of us will pay for that service. But don't expect actual photographers to waste their time and money on doing what we would rather pay someone to do.

    Ron, I will gladly buy your book once I know mine is going to get published...but I hope to never need it because I want to keep companies like Ilford in business for a long time.

    In the meantime, I wish Sean would lock up this frustrating thread....it should have never been started in the first place!
    Last edited by PKM-25; 08-18-2013 at 12:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #289

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    I don't like to stir up controversy, but I think this thread is very valuable and should continue. I perfectly support the position of the experts who point out the plain fact that there are better color film stocks available and that Kodachrome had lost its popularity long before the last roll was made. I appreciate that there are fewer dye couplers which are soluble in a strongly alkali developer and therefore the palette to Kodachrome is smaller than other films. I realize the inherent problems with positive to positive duplication--the toes overlap and all the rest of it. I concede that there is magenta spillover into the other layers due to stubborn grains which do not develop at the proper time. I am persuaded by all of the scientific arguments; I agree with the reasoning of the engineers--gone are the buffalo!

    But Kodachrome is one of the most important photographic films ever made. Probably more than ninety percent of the population of the United States has seen a Kodachrome image: the Zapruder film; the atomic bomb test at Trinity; the Battle of Midway; raising the flag at Iwo Jima; Marilyn Monroe in Korea; millions of pictures of picnics, birthday parties and the Grand Canyon. Who ever wrote a song about Autochromes?

    I understand there are faster airplanes, but they say that there will always be an airworthy Spitfire. Should we throw away the recipe to Coca Cola? Here is a joke to illustrate my point: Did you know that Paul McCartney was in a band before "Wings"? The point is that the only band anyone has ever heard of McCartney belonging to was the Beatles--and the only color film most people have ever heard of is Kodachrome. I'm sure that someone will come up with a soup to develop the leftover rolls. Moreover, someone will eventually manufacture a monopack color film which requires dye couplers in the developing fluids.

  10. #290
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,434
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    That's what I was thinking, but I wonder, might the color filter layers in the film influence the result in some way?
    The spectral sensitization and the colour filters within a camera film (if there any filters aside of the yellow one) are to split the scene luminance into three overlapping parts representing the primaries. As do the external seperation filters.

    In general the sensitization of colour films in the past differed from that of b&w films. As the external filtration did mirror this there should have been a difference between colour films and b&w films exposed in succession through external filters.

    But I am speaking in general terms. I can't see any typical Kodachrome look due to this.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin