Is the rich-hued Kodachrome era fading to black?
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
History
I used to be a heavy user of Kodachrome - especially Kodachrome 25.
Before digital photography got started I recall reading an article suggesting that digital images would never compete with K25 as such 35mm slides had the equivalent of 50 million pixels. I don't know how that figure was determined, but full frame DSLRs are getting close to that figure.
As far as the colours go, modern software can simulate the Kodachrome look in digital images. It is possible to change the colour saturation simply by pulling a slider on a panel across a computer screen.
I also noticed that on my Nikon 9000 scanner, there is a special setting for scanning Kodachrome slides.
I began to move away from Kodachrome when the developers started to disappear. Last time I used it, it had to be sent to Toronto and took about a week (from Vancouver). So I started using Fujichrome E-6 Velvia slides instead.
I don't miss Kodachrome. It just became less practical to use and killed itself. Shooting RAW, I can take close to 2,000 images on a single card and being able to take only 36 images and then having to put in a new roll is just too inconvenient nowadays. The cost of Kodachrome complete with processing also is far more than using digital cards. The above 16-Gig card can hold the equivalent of over 50 rolls of Kodachrome. The film costs just no longer make any kind of sense.
As it is archival in nature, I guess my slides will be around for a long time, but so will my digital images.
How about Panatomic X film? ASA 25. Supposedly grainless (if developed properly). I wonder how many megapixels a 35mm frame of this film is equivalent to?
I used to be a heavy user of Kodachrome - especially Kodachrome 25.
Before digital photography got started I recall reading an article suggesting that digital images would never compete with K25 as such 35mm slides had the equivalent of 50 million pixels. I don't know how that figure was determined, but full frame DSLRs are getting close to that figure.
As far as the colours go, modern software can simulate the Kodachrome look in digital images. It is possible to change the colour saturation simply by pulling a slider on a panel across a computer screen.
I also noticed that on my Nikon 9000 scanner, there is a special setting for scanning Kodachrome slides.
I began to move away from Kodachrome when the developers started to disappear. Last time I used it, it had to be sent to Toronto and took about a week (from Vancouver). So I started using Fujichrome E-6 Velvia slides instead.
I don't miss Kodachrome. It just became less practical to use and killed itself. Shooting RAW, I can take close to 2,000 images on a single card and being able to take only 36 images and then having to put in a new roll is just too inconvenient nowadays. The cost of Kodachrome complete with processing also is far more than using digital cards. The above 16-Gig card can hold the equivalent of over 50 rolls of Kodachrome. The film costs just no longer make any kind of sense.
As it is archival in nature, I guess my slides will be around for a long time, but so will my digital images.
How about Panatomic X film? ASA 25. Supposedly grainless (if developed properly). I wonder how many megapixels a 35mm frame of this film is equivalent to?
I still shoot a little Kodachrome (I don't do digital, but my primary reversal film is Velvia). It's gorgeous film.
I think a lot of people expect their digital images will last as long as Kodachrome images will, but for the most part they are wrong. Kodachrome images need only be reasonably stored to last for a century. Digital images will require a lot more intervention (repeated migration from one medium to another). Hard disks fail, flash fails, optical media (particularly burned media) only lasts a few years... it takes a lot of work to keep the data intact. Of course, if you do you have an original with no degradation forever (assuming you can still manipulate a proprietary RAW image) but the vast majority of people won't spend the time and effort to preserve their images.
The only downsides to Kodachrome are the slow processing (there is only one lab in the world that processes the film, although a lot of local places will forward the film for you) and the greater difficulty in scanning. Kodachrome does not scan like any other film, because of the fact that it doesn't use dyes.
Go shoot a few rolls. Delicious stuff.
I think a lot of people expect their digital images will last as long as Kodachrome images will, but for the most part they are wrong. Kodachrome images need only be reasonably stored to last for a century. Digital images will require a lot more intervention (repeated migration from one medium to another). Hard disks fail, flash fails, optical media (particularly burned media) only lasts a few years... it takes a lot of work to keep the data intact. Of course, if you do you have an original with no degradation forever (assuming you can still manipulate a proprietary RAW image) but the vast majority of people won't spend the time and effort to preserve their images.
The only downsides to Kodachrome are the slow processing (there is only one lab in the world that processes the film, although a lot of local places will forward the film for you) and the greater difficulty in scanning. Kodachrome does not scan like any other film, because of the fact that it doesn't use dyes.
Go shoot a few rolls. Delicious stuff.
Joined
·
56,634 Posts
In my early days of photography (1970s) I shot a lot of Kodachrome myself, however, much like torch mode on today's HDTVs, I grew tired of the vivid colours. Switched to Fuji and often also used Blacks (which I believe was Fuji, but not sure).
Storing film can be a bit tricky. I have all my negs in special plastic sleeves (designed for film so that there is no off-gassing) and in order with indexes at the start of each binder. The last few years when I was shooting film and the highest resolution digital cameras were very expensive, I had the film digitally scanned at Kodak at time of processing - it gave me much higher resolution and meant that I didn't need to spend $1000s on a digital camera. I was only shooting a few rolls per year.
I only started using digital a couple of years ago when prices came down by a factor of 10 and quality went up.
Storing film can be a bit tricky. I have all my negs in special plastic sleeves (designed for film so that there is no off-gassing) and in order with indexes at the start of each binder. The last few years when I was shooting film and the highest resolution digital cameras were very expensive, I had the film digitally scanned at Kodak at time of processing - it gave me much higher resolution and meant that I didn't need to spend $1000s on a digital camera. I was only shooting a few rolls per year.
I only started using digital a couple of years ago when prices came down by a factor of 10 and quality went up.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!