You're probably right Bruce. K64 has been neglected by photographers for a good many years. What we don't use, the Big Yellow will take away. In the end, no one to blame but ourselves.
I still love that K64 look though!
You're probably right Bruce. K64 has been neglected by photographers for a good many years. What we don't use, the Big Yellow will take away. In the end, no one to blame but ourselves.
I still love that K64 look though!
The demise of Koadachrome can be attributed to several things.
1) the rise of good color negative film and cheap '1-hour photo' labs in the 1980s. People stopped shooting slides on vacation, and stopped having slide shows afterwards.
2) The improvement in Kodak's E-6 films, and the emergence of Fuji slide films, turned the professional (advertising & editorial) market away from Kodachrome. As far back as 1994 I attended a workshop where the teacher showed a comparison between K64 and the then-current Fujichrome and Ektachromes. In short K64, didn't look as good. That, added to 3-hour E-6 turnaround vs. 1-day (at best) K-14, sealed the deal for the pros.
3) Kodak's lab woes in the 90s didn't help either. And when there's one lab left for the entire world...
4) Digital imaging, of course, looms larger than any of those other factors.
I shot some K64 last fall, at foliage time, and the colors are indeed beautiful. But not enough people have wanted to put up with the (percieved) drawbacks, and so a beautiful, if antiquated, technology goes away.
I really don't want to blame anyone in particular, especailly you... but weren't there also some serious environmental concerns associated with the manufacturing or processing that may have led to the "demise"? I seem to recall some chatter but cn't recall any specifics.Originally Posted by Bruce Watson
I don't see what K64 has in common with Portra. In fact, I don't see any real replacement for Kodachrome, although I stopped using it way back when the quality
control of the labs was forfeited by Kodak. I still have a roll of 120 Kodachrome in the
freezer as a sort of momento. Now that was nice stuff, which Kodak spent a lot of
money to set up a couple of processing lines for, then promptly discontinued. Typical.
But since my color shooting is 99% large format, none of this particularly affects me
personally.
You sort of missed one Mark. Kodachrome is an expensive process line to maintain and the environmental problems caused by the processing effluents only increased that cost. Added to the decline in sales, labs that formerly processed smaller volumes of Kodachrome couldn't make a profit processing the film, hence the steep decline in processing availability.
Also in play was the decline in Super 8 film consumption which was supplanted by the acceptance of consumer video cameras. At one point photo pundits predicted that video cameras would replace the still camera in the recreational photo segment.
It was a good run while it lasted but I don't fault Kodak for the decision. I'm sure the tongues will be wagging over on APUG cursing Kodak.
Don Bryant
When was Kodachrome last available in sheets?
Kodachrome should have been discontinued five to ten years ago! I'm surprised it has lasted this long into the digital age. Kodachrome has its biggest following among railroad fans who swore by its longevity and colors. I used it for several years before switching to Agfachrome for 35mm. My gripe was that processing got sloppy around 2000 by the K-14 lab in the Bay Area, and often my slides would come back scratched or exposed to light. Then of course digital came. Why scan a slide when you can have a scanner in your camera!
So true! Processing did get sloppy. A scandal! The great film didn't deserve that idignity. Kodachrome was a lovely film and the slides were something to see projected in the darkened living room of a friend's apartment, listening to their stories about adventures in exotic places.Kodachrome should have been discontinued five to ten years ago! I'm surprised it has lasted this long into the digital age. Kodachrome has its biggest following among railroad fans who swore by its longevity and colors. I used it for several years before switching to Agfachrome for 35mm. My gripe was that processing got sloppy around 2000 by the K-14 lab in the Bay Area, and often my slides would come back scratched or exposed to light. Then of course digital came. Why scan a slide when you can have a scanner in your camera!
Now we get itty bitty digi dittys in the email. Heaven forbid we get to interact with other human beans in person!
Chesterton said it best...the exact qoute escapes me but it goes sort of like this:
I am of a different age. Most of the things that I love have been banned or are extinct.
In Kodachrome's defense, how many other films have geological features or Paul Sion songs named after them? I'm officially retiring my Nikon camera.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Kodak sucks! Does Kodak care about photography? HELL NO! Let Kodak die as fast as they are killing off their products. I never recommend Kodak film (except Kodachrome) and definitely NO to any Kodak digitial products.
He he, don't forget a national park!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks