Another Thing That Didn't Survive 2010

This is a discussion on Another Thing That Didn't Survive 2010 within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; Link...


Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,595
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Admin


  • #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,481
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Quote Originally Posted by MOD View Post

    Isn't it weird and interesting how much things can change in what is really a pretty short time. I had read a while back about Dwaynes Photo closing down. It seems Kodak stopped manufacturing the chemicals for the finishing process a year ago but set Dwaynes Photo up with a year supply of chemicals at that time so they knew the end was coming.

    Here is yet another link to the NY Times article last week and read about the rush at the end including one Railroader with near $16,000.00 worth of developing that borrowed some of the money to 'get it done'.
    NY Times Article
    KimR

    Comments and Critique are always encouraged, considered and appreciated. Thank in advance too.

  • #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    266
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    Quote Originally Posted by KimR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MOD View Post

    Isn't it weird and interesting how much things can change in what is really a pretty short time. [b]I had read a while back about Dwaynes Photo closing down. It seems stopped manufacturing the chemicals for the finishing process a year ago but set Dwaynes Photo up with a year supply of chemicals at that time so they knew the end was coming.
    Just to clarify but Dewayne's Photo is NOT "closing down" - no longer be developing Kodachrome but not closing.

    Dewayne's Photo Website

    (BTW: Love the T-shirt they're selling.)


    Here's to hoping the Impossible Project picks this one up too! (Yes, I'm a bit of a dreamer sometimes.)
    ~Vinnie

    The Black Dog's Photographer
    Minolta Maxxum 7D
    Fuji FinePix S7000
    Minolta x-700
    Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super B
    Seneca Folding Scout
    Holga 120N
    Polariod One Step

  • #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    197
    what is kodachrome? lol
    i hope dwayne's really takes the publicity for what it is worth. i heard on npr all the way to local news

  • #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,481
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDog's View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KimR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MOD View Post

    Isn't it weird and interesting how much things can change in what is really a pretty short time. [b]I had read a while back about Dwaynes Photo closing down. It seems stopped manufacturing the chemicals for the finishing process a year ago but set Dwaynes Photo up with a year supply of chemicals at that time so they knew the end was coming.
    Just to clarify but Dewayne's Photo is NOT "closing down" - no longer be developing Kodachrome but not closing.

    Dewayne's Photo Website

    (BTW: Love the T-shirt they're selling.)


    Here's to hoping the Impossible Project picks this one up too! (Yes, I'm a bit of a dreamer sometimes.)
    Thank you for clarifying that they are not closing. My BAD in the way I understood it and wrote it. I certainly hope they are able to remain in business and in a successful business too.
    KimR

    Comments and Critique are always encouraged, considered and appreciated. Thank in advance too.

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SW WI
    Posts
    3,731
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    I never in my life thought that we'd lose kodachrome, nor did I ever imagine that I'd be able to take photos and process them to my liking on the very same day.

    In a way, progress can move us forward and backward at the same time.
    *I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. ~Frank Lloyd Wright, quoted, 14 August 1966*

    Assorted cameras.
    P&S
    Nikon D40
    Olympus E-420


    My Flickr

    Mulewings~My Blog
    Val

  • #7
    Nikon Shooter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eatontown, NJ
    Posts
    1,006
    PHOTO EDITING OK
    Kodachrome was a victim of its own technology. To do justice to a slide, you had to look at it on a light table with an expensive magnifier. Projecting a slide through a crappy projector onto a non-flat, non-parallel-to-the-projector screen that was probably dirty, did not do the slide any justice.

    Neither of those two methods was convenient for the typical viewer. It produced average results, at best. So the next method is to print a slide...

    Now we're down to making an internegative and printing that- but that robbed you of quality also.

    A direct print from slide was called a Cibachrome (who remembers that name!)- now called Ilfochrome, I believe. It produced beautiful results, but, you guessed it, was very expensive. I believe pro labs still do Ilfochrome.

    Scanning Kodachrome slides today is also a bit of a crap-shoot. Most scanners are set up for the color palette of E-6 slides, from what I read. Scanning Kodachrome slides requires custom settings that most people don't bother with. So the results are usually mixed, at best.

    In any case, the only real justice to the Kodachrome process, for the consumer, was the Cibachrome- and even with a bunch of great slides, maybe you printed 1 in 100. The other way, of course, for the pro, was to get them published. I believe the printing process for a magazine or book did a good job with Kodachrome. But obviously, that wasn't available to the average photographer.

    Its ashame that there are tons of slides that will probably never get viewed again. When was the last time you went to someone's house and they pulled out their projector and screen and a few carousels of slides!!!??? They still will pull out old prints and photo albums- but project slides? Even if you have the slides, often the projector is long gone.

    Regards,
    Marlo

    Check out my blog! --- http://marlomontanaro.wordpress.com

  • #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR; USA
    Posts
    57
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    I was once a professional photographer and always had to use slide film because all my photos were for publication. I have thousands of slides and the Expression 3600 to scan them. It has a back light and can even do up to the 4x5 I once shot.

    Kodachrome was an artists slide film and no commercial photographer that I knew used it and no agency sought it. I sold my JOBO AutoLab flim processor for maybe 1/10 the new cost but could not give it away today. I gave away my Bessler 4X5 motorized enlarger. Few. if any, commercial photographers use flim anymore.

    My scans of my slides will print better than cibichromes ever could. MUCH better. The idea that made reversal flim less commercially useful than slide flim was in the end product of one once requiring giving prints to agencies verses giving them slides to scan. They could have scanned negatives but could not see them until after the scan. The idea behind the improved sharpness of slide was the translation from:

    1 (molecular sized "pixels" of slides to the final print) 1-step versus

    2 (molecular sized "pixels" of reversal film to the intermediate print to the scanner's capability to scan the print and dust.) 2-steps
    Kodachrome was a slide flavor very much like tungsten flim compared to daylight flim.

    The "sad" fact is that all flim will be gone by the close of this decade. It is already a novelty.
    I have no sorrow and feel it is about time.
    Megapixels can surpass the once useful resolutions possible with flim already and flim "favors" are now irrelevant.
    A 4x5 scanned at max resolution with my scanner is too big for the computers of today. Thousands of gigabytes.
    An interesting bit of trivia is that I used 35mm, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, and 4X5 and with modern scanners can make a wall size print from a 35mm almost as easily as from a 4x5. The scan is easier from the 4x5 but the useful resolution is the same.
    http://www.curtisneeley.com/BWFineArt/Dete...riorations.html 4X5 to early 2 mp digital can you guess which are flim? That is why flim is dead.



  •  

    Remove Ads

    Sponsored Links

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •