
Last roll of Kodachrome film goes through last Kodachrome lab - buzzblog
http://www.kansas.com/2010/07/14/1403115/last-kodachrome-roll-processed.html
======
Tamerlin
It's a good thing for photography that even though Kodak is fading out of
film, film itself isn't quite dying. Last year at PMA there were 22 new
emulsions announced and demoed, and there's still a market for even very large
format film sheets (up to 12x24, that I know of). There are also new large-
format cameras appearing on the market yearly, so the medium isn't dying.

Calumet ran an industry survey a few years ago, and discovered that large
format film was actually a GROWING niche in the photographic industry,
primarily with amateur fine art landscape photographers, and it is still
common among current fine art landscape photographers.

And there are still people shooting portraits and still lifes with view
cameras.

------
stan_rogers
Shame, but the real death was when K25 went away eight years ago. Fiddly
stuff, that, with no room for error (and slow lenses need not apply) but,
damn, those colours! Fall foliage may never look the same. But I guess this
guy, a handful of National Geographic types and a Paul Simon tune can't stop
the march of progress.

~~~
sliverstorm
Is there a reason you cannot reproduce those colors? I'm guessing the film
accentuates colors, rather than simply being more accurate than others, so
with a very accurate (true-to-life) digital photo and a carefully designed
'shop filter, it should be reproducible.

~~~
gchpaco
Kodachrome used very different dyes than E6 (current slide film) or C41 (color
negative; basically similar structure) and was sensitive to slightly different
wavelengths. As a result its color gamut, as it were, is very different form
either of those two, or digital (designed as it was to look like existing
film). I'm not sure that a filter would be enough to "correct" for that; it
could be a lot like trying to mimic infrared, which can be faked but not
really replicated by anything that can't see into those wavelengths.

------
Toucan
The headline is mildly ambiguous.

To be more precise, this is the last roll of Kodachrome which was produced.
Not the last roll of Kodachrome which Dwayne's will develop.

From Dwayne's website:

Kodachrome Film Status: The last day of processing for all types of Kodachrome
film will be December 30th, 2010. The last day Kodak will accept prepaid
Kodachrome film in Europe is November 30th, 2010. Film that is not in our lab
by noon on December 30th will not be processed.

Which is a great relief to me, because I still have 3 rolls of film I'm saving
for 3 special occasions over this summer.

------
patrickgzill
When the history of Kodak is written, Kodachrome should get an entire chapter
as an example of managerial malpractice.

Imagine: you have loyal fans, hundreds if not thousands of pro and amateur
photographers who ONLY use your product, each pro shooting thousands of rolls
of film per year (yes, pros go through a lot of film). Fuji tried to duplicate
it but couldn't.

The entirety of the market for Kodachrome is 100% owned by Kodak, from
manufacturing the film, the unique developer process, the chemicals, etc.

The film also has unique archival characteristics and other characteristics
that mean almost all competitors are locked out - if you want the Kodachrome
"look and feel", you have to use Kodachrome.

Fans as rabid as Mac fanbois, unique lockin, capture of nearly 100% of the
value in the entire chain ... and Kodak _cancels_ the product.

------
mustpax
There is much that makes me nostalgic about film but I regret its loss as an
educational tool the most. Learning photography is about learning to slow
down.

A finite roll, an arduous and tactile development process all encourage
patience and being methodological in a way digital photography doesn't.

~~~
hartror
In my case I learnt on digital and the freedom of digital meant I have been
able to continually experiment unafraid of wasting film (and money). The
learning process for me has been a mixture of reading the basics and a large
amount trial and error. I started snapping away but as I have learnt what
works I spend more time deciding the what, where and how (so now I am the
annoying relative that takes ages to take the family photo).

~~~
mustpax
I did not mean to say film is the only way to learn photography; it clearly
isn't. The art transcends any tools used to perform it. I just feel nostalgic
for my journey from a n00b to non-n00b and how the challenge of film
contributed greatly to it. More power to you, and to anyone, who masters the
art regardless.

------
ben1040
Reading this took me back to the intro photography course I took back in
college a decade ago. I'm told a couple years later they had switched to
digital for their courses because they lost their source for reagents for
their paper processor, and getting a more modern piece of equipment just
wasn't cost effective.

In that semester I learned that getting a "great" image out of a digital
camera still isn't as satisfying as getting an "ok" image after spending time
in the darkroom, smelling all the chemistry, and fighting with color balance
and exposure time.

------
waivej
It is indeed sad. Kodachrome 200 was my favorite film. I loved the way it
would go blue when overexposed and red when underexposed. I even have a
panroamic photo on my wall I took at "Kodachrome Canyon". It was named because
the red rocks worked well with the film. Though by then I was shooting on a
Canon G1 and only used an old roll as a prop. Once I went digital I never
looked back.

~~~
Retric
Presumably you should be able to setup a digital filter to apply the same
effect to any source image.

~~~
potatolicious
The feel of the colours, perhaps, but not the dynamic range. I used to think
this was film-nerd wankery, but now that I'm shooting a lot of film
(particularly B&W), the difference is immense. Digital sensors have not yet
come even close to the dynamic range of film.

For non-photographers: you know that shot where your friend is standing over
the railing with the ocean behind him that you can never get? Where he's
either pitch black with a beautiful ocean behind him, or he's properly lit and
the background is pure white? Welcome to dynamic range limitation.

The popularity of HDR as an imaging technique is just one of the things that
have evolved to make up for the lacklustre performance of digital sensors,
especially when it comes to high-contrast landscapes.

~~~
waivej
Slide film like Kodakchrome actually captured a pretty narrow dynamic range.
It was harder to get right, but it rewarded you with more "bits" in the
colors.

For example, I did a test with print film and systematically tried different
exposures. The whole roll looked the same. With slides, just being off a few
stops would blow the shot. Also, printing on paper would lose half of the
range so shooting slide and scanning would have much better digital images.

Ironically, the Canon G1 behaved a lot like slide film. The G2 was much more
forgiving like print film. These days I find digital to be very forgiving and
easy when I might have had trouble with film. (ex: shooting a wedding, it's
easy to properly expose a dark suit next to a white dress.)

Speaking of BW print film, what are you shooting these days? I used to like
Plus-x 125 for the silky tones and Tri-x 400 for the grainier contrast.

------
hackermom
There is actually still a lab or two around that process with the K-14M method
(the Kodachrome process). A dear friend of mine still shoots the occasional
roll of slide film (of which Kodachrome, for its warm tone, is his favorite),
and he employs a "professionals' lab" that still - at least as long as they
can get their hands on chemicals - develops all types of positive and slide
film, and even black and white process film.

