Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away.

[Bruce Pollock]

Maybe it's not news to a lot of people, but here's an interesting update on Kodachrome (http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/article.en.do?pn=tech&articleID=3000309).

[Bill_1856]

Perhaps even more important than the film is Kodachrome processing, which became crappy in the 1980s. At one time, National Geographic had their own Kodachrome lab.
If there is real need for archival photos, it can just as well be done by making 3-color separations from digital images, and preserving them by whatever technique is most archival at the time.

[Gordon Moat]

I think the really interesting part is that Kodak are doing one run per year of Kodachrome, and only one ISO. There was some data on Dwayne's last year that indicated about 1000 rolls a day processing volume. It's definitely a niche, and a quite small niche; unfortunately reliant upon a large company that needs volume for profits.

I have always preferred Ektachrome, though I didn't grow up shooting Kodachrome. I only shot one job ever on Kodachrome, and it was specifically for a swing band who were hoping for a certain look. I cannot really claim that the result was more unique or nostalgic than from using Ektachrome, and the turn-around time was terrible compared to the 3 hours E-6 I can get done at my preferred lab.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[SamReeves]

Kodachrome was a great film and I used the 64 many times. However after Kodak closed the lab up in San Leandro I gave up and moved to E-6 based films. And of course in the digital age, there's not too much call for 35mm slide film. I amazed to this day it's still in the Kodak catalog. :eek:

[mrladewig]

I'm amazed that Kodak has films they only offer in 35mm like the new Ektar C-41 film. Why not offer it at least in 120 too? I will say that I'll be trying out the new Ektar as soon as I find some. But in general, I find 35mm to be easier (and cheaper) to just pull out the digital body.

[D. Bryant]

Why not offer it at least in 120 too?
Amen to that brother!


But in general, I find 35mm to be easier (and cheaper) to just pull out the digital body.

I don't know how that is cheaper than shooting digital.

Don Bryant