5 ms·

Man I miss Kodachrome. Of course, I hadn’t shot it in decades. I miss the idea of it more, I guess.

pampa 7y ago
I never shot kodachrome, but did shoot a lot of medium format provia and velvia with a Rolleiflex TLR in 2004-2015. I made prints from the slides digitally, because direct printing with cibachrome/ilfochrome was virtually unobtainable. Stopped shooting film completely when i got my 1st gen Sony A7R. Somehow the colors out of this camera were as pleasing as a roll of provia, with just a little exposure/contrast adjustment.
- projektfu 7y ago
  +1 on Velvia. Ektachrome was also pretty, especially for landscapes and green eyed people.
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    And it still is--- it was reintroduced recently.
    - projektfu 7y ago
      I think that famous National Geographic photo of the Afghanastani girl was compelling mainly because of the choice of film. (Not sure which one, but most films preferred greens and blues)
      - sjburt 7y ago
        That was very famously Kodachrome, so much so that the photographer, Steve McCurry was given the last roll ever produced.
      - dehrmann 7y ago
        Pretty sure it's this photo: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a8/45/a5/a845a5fe73a57ad4bbaa75f1f720adb5--girl-photography-amazing-photography.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a8/45/a5/a845a5fe73a57ad4bbaa75f1f...
  - markemer 7y ago
    Ektachrome was the other thing I shot a lot of. But you could never beat that Kodachrome Red.
- freepor 7y ago
  There's no question that the technical results of a top digital camera blow film out of the f'in water. But that's what makes me nostalgic for the film days, in some ways. Getting a really fantastic film picture used to be a special occasion. I'd get an average of one a roll and that cost money. Now I get literally hundreds of amazing images a year and have to print them into big hardcover books to store them. So the special experience of finding that one amazing slide in your box is gone. Same thing with CDs and records. The vinyls are dominated on every parameter and that's what their charm is, like an old, lame, dog.
  - pampa 7y ago
    I don't miss the limitations of a roll of film, I usually took about 10-12 rolls of 120 film on a trip. thats 120-150 frames. Never bracketed, sometimes took two pictures of the same subject from different angles. The habbits carried over, with digital i shoot maybe twice as much (with about the same number of good pictures per trip, so for me more shots != more pics). What i miss is the experience and workflow of a mechanical 6x6 TLR camera. You hold the camera at chest level, look down on the viewscreen, frame, then decide to take the picture or not. Nothing in digital does this yet.
    - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
      I haven't used a TRL, so I don't see what's the difference from just using a digital camera that can flip the screen 90 degrees up? Like an Olympus M1 mk. 3, for instance?
      - frostburg 7y ago
        It works in direct sunlight.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - projektfu 7y ago
      An interesting thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4270881 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4270881
- abruzzi 7y ago
  I was recently going through digitizing slides my father took when we lived in Nigeria in the mid ‘70s. One thing I noticed was the Kodachrome slides looked perfect—no color fading. Most of the Ektachrome and other E-6 type slides had significantly faded. They were mostly salvageable in Photoshop, but a lot of their color had gone. Unfortunately Kodachrome will never come back like Ektachrome has. The development process was insanely complex compared to E-6 and it’s unlikely it would be cost effective for anyone to do it.
fortran77 7y ago
I have boxes and boxes of stereo slides shot on Kodachrome with a Stereo Realist camera. I need to scan them in for viewing on a modern 3D system, like VR goggles.
throwanem 7y ago
I learned on film as a kid, and sometimes I miss the idea of it a little, too. Then I think about how, today, I can take a hundred macro shots of a busily hunting wasp at zero incremental cost, then very quickly and easily "develop" the half dozen already excellent keepers to really bring out the same vivid colors and sharp contrast my mind's eye saw in the viewfinder image, and then make large-format, gallery-quality prints for $5 each in materials on a printer that cost me a hundred bucks brand new. And I don't miss the idea of film at all.

I never shot kodachrome, but did shoot a lot of medium format provia and velvia with a Rolleiflex TLR in 2004-2015. I made prints from the slides digitally, because direct printing with cibachrome/ilfochrome was virtually unobtainable. Stopped shooting film completely when i got my 1st gen Sony A7R. Somehow the colors out of this camera were as pleasing as a roll of provia, with just a little exposure/contrast adjustment.

projektfu 7y ago
+1 on Velvia. Ektachrome was also pretty, especially for landscapes and green eyed people.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  And it still is--- it was reintroduced recently.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    I think that famous National Geographic photo of the Afghanastani girl was compelling mainly because of the choice of film. (Not sure which one, but most films preferred greens and blues)
    - sjburt 7y ago
      That was very famously Kodachrome, so much so that the photographer, Steve McCurry was given the last roll ever produced.
    - dehrmann 7y ago
      Pretty sure it's this photo: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a8/45/a5/a845a5fe73a57ad4bbaa75f1f720adb5--girl-photography-amazing-photography.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/474x/a8/45/a5/a845a5fe73a57ad4bbaa75f1f...
- markemer 7y ago
  Ektachrome was the other thing I shot a lot of. But you could never beat that Kodachrome Red.
freepor 7y ago
There's no question that the technical results of a top digital camera blow film out of the f'in water. But that's what makes me nostalgic for the film days, in some ways. Getting a really fantastic film picture used to be a special occasion. I'd get an average of one a roll and that cost money. Now I get literally hundreds of amazing images a year and have to print them into big hardcover books to store them. So the special experience of finding that one amazing slide in your box is gone. Same thing with CDs and records. The vinyls are dominated on every parameter and that's what their charm is, like an old, lame, dog.
- pampa 7y ago
  I don't miss the limitations of a roll of film, I usually took about 10-12 rolls of 120 film on a trip. thats 120-150 frames. Never bracketed, sometimes took two pictures of the same subject from different angles. The habbits carried over, with digital i shoot maybe twice as much (with about the same number of good pictures per trip, so for me more shots != more pics). What i miss is the experience and workflow of a mechanical 6x6 TLR camera. You hold the camera at chest level, look down on the viewscreen, frame, then decide to take the picture or not. Nothing in digital does this yet.
  - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
    I haven't used a TRL, so I don't see what's the difference from just using a digital camera that can flip the screen 90 degrees up? Like an Olympus M1 mk. 3, for instance?
    - frostburg 7y ago
      It works in direct sunlight.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - projektfu 7y ago
    An interesting thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4270881 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4270881
abruzzi 7y ago
I was recently going through digitizing slides my father took when we lived in Nigeria in the mid ‘70s. One thing I noticed was the Kodachrome slides looked perfect—no color fading. Most of the Ektachrome and other E-6 type slides had significantly faded. They were mostly salvageable in Photoshop, but a lot of their color had gone. Unfortunately Kodachrome will never come back like Ektachrome has. The development process was insanely complex compared to E-6 and it’s unlikely it would be cost effective for anyone to do it.

fortran77 7y ago

I have boxes and boxes of stereo slides shot on Kodachrome with a Stereo Realist camera. I need to scan them in for viewing on a modern 3D system, like VR goggles.

throwanem 7y ago

I learned on film as a kid, and sometimes I miss the idea of it a little, too. Then I think about how, today, I can take a hundred macro shots of a busily hunting wasp at zero incremental cost, then very quickly and easily "develop" the half dozen already excellent keepers to really bring out the same vivid colors and sharp contrast my mind's eye saw in the viewfinder image, and then make large-format, gallery-quality prints for $5 each in materials on a printer that cost me a hundred bucks brand new. And I don't miss the idea of film at all.