Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Media Technology

Kodak Kills Kodachrome 399

eldavojohn writes "Another sign that digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog comes with Kodak's announcement to discontinue Kodachrome film. This should come as no surprise as Polaroid film was phased out long ago. At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kodak Kills Kodachrome

Comments Filter:
    • by RDW ( 41497 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @06:31PM (#28430295)
      In other news, the Kodachrome Basin State Park [] is to beconcreted over to make way for the new Sandisk Extreme IV SDHC Mall. '"The majority of today's consumers have voiced their preference to experience the natural world with newer technology -- both DVD and Blu-Ray", said Mary Jane Vizigoth, president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing And Other Stuff We're Trying To Get Rid Of Group. "While the Basin is a truly iconic Park that has served tourists very well for decades, the simple truth is that people have moved on and are no longer visiting it in sustainable volumes."

      Seriously, this is a terrible shame, though hardly a surprise (here in the UK, we already have to post the exposed film to Kodak Switzerland, who forward it to the only lab in the world that can process the film, Dwayne's in Kansas). It's a bit like waking up one morning to hear that oil paints are no longer available, but acrylics should be an adequate substitute. Kodachrome is a truly unique film that works in a completely different way to any other emulsion, and gives a distinctive 'look' that no other film (let alone digital) can reproduce. Check out The Kodachrome Project [] to see why some of us will miss it so much.
  • by multisync ( 218450 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:44PM (#28427401) Journal

    But Mama don't take my Velvia [] away!

    • Doesn't the wikipedia entry you linked to say that it was discontinued in 2005?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jmcbain ( 1233044 )
        No, the Wikipedia article does not say Velvia was discontinued. It says that the original type of Velvia (RVP) was discontinued. However, new lines of Velvia are still going strong. In fact, Velvia and Provia are typically still the film of choice among professionals still shooting film.
    • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:14PM (#28427977)

      I didn't even know Kodak made cheese!

      Hey, speaking of cheesy...

  • The ultimate irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:44PM (#28427409) Homepage Journal

    I think what will be the big irony of the digital revolution is that we haven't tackled the technological problems yet like getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time. One might think that with the advent of digital that in 100 years we'll have pictures of virtually everything from this era, but because of the problems people face, we will probably yet again have a gapping hole in time filled with lost pictures.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by petrus4 ( 213815 )

      No; all that's happened is that digital as a format has proven that, in most cases, photos genuinely aren't worth all that much.

      As far as people are concerned, photography is basically an attempt to evade death, and not one that works well. I'm guessing most digital photos probably last about as long as they actually should.

      Life is transient.

      • by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:18PM (#28428035)

        how on earth is this insightful. Your telling me your family doesn't have an album, no wedding pictures, baby pictures ? The fact is they are priceless. I personally have processed 20 rolls of film since last year. The reason being I'm documenting time. If I had a dime for everyone who had a digital camera, a HD full of pictures and not a single hard copy to show for it.

        The reason digital camera's are taking over is because it caters to a basic human trait .. laziness !!! I predict there will be a backlash when in ten years when no one no longer has there pictures. I still have pictures my father took back in the 50's not to mention I still have his old camera.

        • by jimbobborg ( 128330 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:31PM (#28428233)

          no wedding pictures

          Seeing how I'm getting divorced...

        • by umghhh ( 965931 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:33PM (#28428273)
          why it has to be dichotomy? I think there is place for both worlds even if some think not (owners of polaroid did not even consider selling right even if there were buyers interested in keeping production). As for digital world being definetly lost I think that is a nonsense - I have digital photos of my wedding, of my growing children etc. and they are great because we could select dozens from hundreds (or rather hundreds from thousands) - but they are all on paper now. The hand made wedding book is filled up with a properly made copies and children photos are printed in a dozen of issues each year by a company doing it in small series on basis of digital photos. While I think there is this strange disparity between your worst nightmare traces left forever in internet where you cannot even delete them and your precious photos lost because medium failure (whether physical or only due to unavailable format decoders etc) I think digital revolution has brought massive advantage in making photos while paper (or plastic) copies still remain - how nice, even funny as predictions of some silly fanatics of the 'new' failed to see the obvious i.e. that people want values and have no interest in technology itself:photo however made is a valuable artifact and it (almost) does not matter how it is made.
        • by Mister Whirly ( 964219 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:50PM (#28428623) Homepage
          And then when your basement floods/house burns down/fill in disaster you lose the one single physical copy your have. The advantage to digital photos are it is very cheap to make copies of them, and/or you can store them online so you will never truly "lose" your pictures. Plus I can fit 5,000 pictures in my pocket on a thumb drive without having to carry 500 lbs. of photo albums over to someone's house to look at them. Digital photos also do not degrade with the passage of time.
          • by YouWantFriesWithThat ( 1123591 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @05:26PM (#28429245)
            if you bring 5,000 pictures over to my house and expect me to look at them all you will be out on the porch so fast you will be dizzy!
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Locke2005 ( 849178 )
              Does it make any difference if all 5000 pictures are porn? You don't have to look at them now, just transfer them to your hard drive....
          • by Main Gauche ( 881147 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @05:31PM (#28429361)

            Plus I can fit 5,000 pictures in my pocket on a thumb drive without having to carry 500 lbs. of photo albums over to someone's house to look at them.

            To summarize: the two main advantages to digital are (i) backups, and (ii) the ability to bore your friends conveniently.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by vlm ( 69642 )

            Digital photos also do not degrade with the passage of time.

            That's the funny part about this discussion, all the non-photographers whom think color process pics will never degrade, as permanent as the Egyptian pyramids, blah blah.

            True, PROPERLY PROCESSED black and white prints will last forever. Unfortunately the only way to tell if a B+W print was properly processed to remove all the unexposed silver and processing chemicals, and was really printed on genuinely acid-free paper, is to wait and see if it turns brown and/or stains and/or crumbles away. Pro processor

          • Paper or plastic? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Petrini ( 49261 )

            My family's house did burn down while I was in high school, with two younger siblings. Many photos were lost. Some, forever. Most are back, however, including photos of my childhood and that of my parents. Over the years, we had exchanged photos with our family. After we were settled and life had returned to normal, everyone returned pictures. We even got some new ones I'd never seen before.

            Digitize your photos, if you like. Don't forget to grab all your thumb drives as you're evacuating, or

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Five Bucks! ( 769277 )

          You're right, the previous post was not insightful and just shows that there is a serious lack of foresight into our future.

          We're all so dammed obsessed with the present and we have a reckless disregard for both the past and the future. People ignore history and don't consider the impact decisions will have on the future. It spans everything from adopting fully-documented open standards for digital works (documents, audio and images) to erasure of privacy that humanity has worked hard to enact over many gen

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Dogtanian ( 588974 )

            Don't get me wrong, those are great and I have many... but it doesn't satisfy the fact that jpeg is a compressed file and the compression algorithms can be lost in time.

            Honestly? I could understand your concern if it was about some esoteric undocumented proprietary scheme.

            But JPEG is an *incredibly* widely used format and there are countless programs that can process it (including ones that can resave it in uncompressed formats, if you're really that bothered.)

            It's unlikely that things would get so bad that we couldn't even reverse engineer or understand JPEG (let alone run legacy decoding apps) yet we could still conveniently access and run the computer equipment nece

      • by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:30PM (#28428223) Homepage

        Historians in 250 years time will be very interested in your holiday snaps. It won't matter that they aren't well taken etc, they will still tell them a lot about life in the early 2000s.

        • by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:34PM (#28428293)
          And since there is about 10000x as many photos taken today with digital even if only .1% survive there will be more information for them to sort through.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Joce640k ( 829181 )
            Between Google Street View and Facebook there's enough pics for any future historian. All those laptop hard disks can die with no real loss to humanity.
            • 2759 a.d. (Score:3, Funny)

              by Zordak ( 123132 )

              Facebook there's enough pics for any future historian.

              And here, children, is our exhibit on the Great Collapse, also sometimes called the Second Dark Ages. The details of how it happened are sketchy, but we have abundant archaeological evidence from what is known as the Facebook Archive that 21st century humans were utterly incapable of forming coherent sentences or spelling words in their entirety, and were bizarrely obsessed with inane abbreviations like "brb," "lol," and "ur." Without any effective means of communication, commerce broke down completely,

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:39PM (#28428391)
        Evade death? Beans! Sometimes photography is just a matter of seeing something you'd like to have a static reminder of. It's not always about leaving some kind of legacy. Usually it's just as simple as "Wow. That mountain scene is lovely. I'd like to see that when I get back to my office every day. " Freakin' cynic.
      • by dancingmad ( 128588 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:49PM (#28428609)

        Seriously, I don't know what's made you so emo, and I was just going to mod you down, but honestly, even people's most banal pictures can become important. I was an Asian Studies major in college and seeing photos from Japan's Meiji and Taisho periods was amazing. These are just family pictures or whatever.

        When I lived in Yokohama, the city was celebrating 150 years since the port was opened and had hundreds of photos up of the city throughout that time.

        Just because you're having fun in philosophy 101 doesn't mean photos can't be important.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I was an Asian Studies major in college

          I bet you have a lot of spare time these days.

    • by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:03PM (#28427773)
      It is much, much easier to back up digital for 100 years than it is to back up film.

      Film stock is extremely unstable. One of the major problems in preserving old motion pictures is that the reels of film fuse together. (In fact, most active film restoration projects involve carefully digitizing the movies for preservation). If you have carefully separated your negatives, and store them in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, you can slow down the deterioration, but not stop it altogether.

      Prints from both digital and film sources are essentially identical - if you use the best technologies (pH neutral paper, etc) your prints from both medium will last about the same time. Unfortunately, of course, people tend to use the cheapest solution, not the best available solution - but that is a market choice, not a failing of the technology involved.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by repetty ( 260322 )
        > Film stock is extremely unstable.

        Apples to oranges, dude.

        Film stock has always been DESIGNED to be temporary. In fact, I can't imagine that the film studios ever expected to get their prints back from the theaters in usable condition and they considered themselves lucky if they did.

        In fact, film studios only recently have taken any interested at all in archiving. They are awful at it.

        It is not film but digital preservation that is bad shape right now.

        Yes, 80% of the movies ever made are gone for good.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by vlm ( 69642 )

        Don't forget dye fading, and that weird fungus/mold stuff that literally eats some negative materials.

        My wife has old negatives where that weird fungus stuff started eating the negatives. Seems stable now, at a lower humidity.

        It's very educational / depressing to find a scan from the early 90s, then scan again just 15 years later, and see how much the negatives and prints have decayed.

        I've been thinking of buying one of those 50 degree wine cooler fridges for my negatives... is that a good idea, if I black

    • getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time

      I've been scanning my family's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.

      Photographs are also not safe from fire or dampness.

      So I don't think the situation has changed all that much. Most photos are junk, and the good ones tend to get distributed, printed, and thus inherently backed up. I know if I somehow lost my main drive, backup drive, and Mozy data I could recover most of my best pictures simply

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JSBiff ( 87824 )

        Why not send your mother and father some CD's of the digital photos you want to restore? "Offsite backup" can really be as simple as that - send some discs or USB flash drives with stuff you want preserved to family or friends who live in a different building. Put some in a safe-deposit box in a bank if you have no one to send them too (or just want additional offsite copies).

        In my experience, the real biggest 'problem' caused by digital photography is people don't tend to throw away the dreck. My parents h

  • by Eevee ( 535658 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:48PM (#28427495)

    They give us those nice bright colors
    They give us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
    I got a Nikon camera
    I love to take a photograph
    So mama don't take my Kodachrome away

  • by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:51PM (#28427557) Journal
    in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.

    Kodachrome was like smoking pot.

    Fuji is like doing acid.

    Agfa is like a rainy day...


    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tverbeek ( 457094 )
      Bah! Ektachrome is a cheap substitute for Kodachrome. Literally. It was introduced as a cheaper film that was easier to develop, and which allowed fast shutter speeds in low light. Kodachrome, on the other hand, has always been for people who wanted the best quality possible, and wanted the images to last. Affordable digital sensors are still not equal to Kodachrome in dynamic range or in detail. A Kodachrome slide kept in optimal conditions will last nearly 200 years with only slight color degradatio
  • The Better Business Bureau [] has a few things to say about Kodak.

    Notice that, in order to lose accreditation with the BBB, you basically have to perform remarkably poorly after you've been informed that your customers are pissed off and you're under review.

  • My Kodachromes from 20 years ago still look as good as they day they were processed. Kodachrome was the film of choice for many years, you could even push it.

  • by YouWantFriesWithThat ( 1123591 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:57PM (#28427687)

    Another sign that digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog

    this is not a sign of anything. the article is being used by the submitter in an attempt to prove a point that he wants to make. in fact, if you read the entire article the assertion of the summary is clearly not supported. this film is hard to develop and there is only one lab in the US that does so. it also is among the worst-selling film that Kodak makes:

    Kodachrome accounted for less than 1 percent of the company's total sales of still-picture films

    so the story here is that Kodak got rid of the bottom selling film of their line. companies do that all the time, and this has nothing to do with digital cameras. film is still sold pervasively and easy developed at dozens of establishments in most towns.

    • by LunaticTippy ( 872397 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:09PM (#28427897)
      Not only that, but they have been discontinuing Kodachrome for years now. This was the last remaining speed they were making, ISO 64. They stopped making other speeds years ago.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by repetty ( 260322 )
      > this is not a sign of anything. the article is being used by the submitter in an
      > attempt to prove a point that he wants to make.

      Man, I agree completely. I'm surprised that this was posted as is. I guess there's no editorial process operating here at all.

      In 60 years, hold up a Kodachrome slide next to a compact optical disk and see which was is still usable.

      I call digital photography "temporary photography."

      I shoot digital myself, occasionally, but I'm not kidding myself about it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Animaether ( 411575 )

        was that 'compact optical disk' refreshed continuously, with a secondary copy in case of corruption of the first?
        if so, then I dare say the picture on that disk is going to be better than your Kodachrome slide.

        media deteriorates, whether we like it or not. That goes for negatives and photographic prints just as well as for 'digital media'. negatives and prints, in our eyes, deteriorate gracefully.. that is to say that if the colors fade a little, that's okay.. we can still see the overall picture. Wherea

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      so the story here is that Kodak got rid of the bottom selling film of their line. companies do that all the time, and this has nothing to do with digital cameras. film is still sold pervasively and easy developed at dozens of establishments in most towns.

      Oh, don't be disingenuous. Digital is clearly killing off niche photographic product development and manufacture. Kodachrome was successful because it offered fantastic color representation, at once vivid and subtle, and combined it with what was once considered razor-fine grain... but because it's an oddball process, Kodak has little incentive to continue its development now that sales of all film have tanked, and E6-process films have caught up with it in terms of grain, if not color representation*.


      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Digital is clearly killing off niche photographic product development and manufacture.

        ah, well, i am going to disagree there. i can't ignore the resurgence in interest in lomography [] and the fact that chain retailers [] are selling the Holga. for example, redscale film [] is just newly being manufactured so that you don't have to wind it yourself. i would argue that the niche is alive and well.

        in my estimation, it is the mainstream casual photographers that have converted wholesale to digital. good riddance. most (like my parents) couldn't get a film snapshot that wasn't jacked up to save

  • by BeardedChimp ( 1416531 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @03:59PM (#28427723)

    "At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times."

    Oh yes Kodak have really coped well [] in the digital age.

    Its not like Kodak concluded a four-year, $3.4 billion restructuring in December 2007 that eliminated 28,000 jobs, about half its workforce []. Or that its "share price sank to the lowest price in at least 35 years".

  • by downix ( 84795 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:05PM (#28427809) Homepage

    I see replies about the death of film, when this was less than 1% of Kodaks film sales per year. Kodachrome is difficult to process, expensive to maintain the equipment for, and has been slowly being phased out for over 50 years, ever since the killing of it in the large format. What the people here do tend to ignore is that for the death of 1 stock, Kodak has introduced new stocks, such as the Ektar 1 and E100D, that truely are visual marvels, cheaper to process and maintain, and most of all, can be upgraded to newer speeds/processes far cheaper than the now almost 80 year old Kodachrome technology. I do think Kodak has made a lot of mis-steps for Film, and I will miss Kodachrome, but I do not call this a mistake in the least.

    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      Yeah. [] pretty much credits Velvia, not digital, with the death of Kodachrome.

      While digital is doing a pretty good job displacing film for the majority of 35mm photography and below, the barriers to entry for medium format digital are so high that film is still going strong there.

      And LF digital? Forget it for a LONG time...

  • From the song "KODACHROME"
    Paul Simon
    Transcribed by Randy Goldberg
    (original URL [])

    Kodachrome, it gives us those nice bright colors
    Gives us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
    I got a Nikon camera, I love to take a photograph
    So momma, don't take my Kodachrome away ...

  • by travdaddy ( 527149 ) <travo@linuxm a i l . o rg> on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:22PM (#28428109)
    Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo. Sounds pretty cool actually! Polaroid Pogo []
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by JanneM ( 7445 )

      "Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo."

      Fuji is making instant film; they've never stopped. You can get Fuji film formats for your Polaroid cameras.

  • A challenge (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fishbowl ( 7759 )

    Using any digital process you'd like, make a slide that doesn't stand out as "fake" in a set of either Kodachrome-25 or Kodachrome-64 slides.

  • Slowly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:23PM (#28428127)

    "digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog"

    I would argue that the transition from analog to digital was actually remarkably quick. The last analog camera I bought was in 2000, I think. Also, cell phones and small point and shoots effectively replaced disposable cameras years ago.

    My guess is the only people who used film after 2005 are *some* professionals and artists.

    • by cabjf ( 710106 )
      Just ask Kodak how quick it was. The company isn't even a shadow of its former self.
  • yes, the workers bought the last Polariod one-step film plant in Holland, days before the machinery was to be junked, and are trying to reinvent the material.

    seems Polaroid used up all the critical chemicals before dumping the product, the process is basically lost.

    that won't happen for Kodachrome. initially only Kodak processed the film, nobody else, they had at one time 28 labs nationwide. then they outsourced the processing lab at Kansas city to Duane's, and closed the rest.

    bet the last film batch was

  • by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:46PM (#28428525) Homepage Journal

    At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times.

    That's like saying that the buggy whip industry knew how to change with the times.

    What they know is that Kodachrome isn't selling as well as it used to, therefore it's not worthwhile for them to manufacture it any more. It's not due to any extreme cleverness or long term strategic planning on their part.

    This is basically the same way that Intel got out of the DRAM business. If you read Grove's book Only the Paranoid Survive, he describes how Intel avoided losing their shirts in the DRAM wars not by being extremely clever in forseeing that the DRAM market was going to become brutally competitive, but by their standard business planning based on costs of wafer starts and profits of various kinds of products. When DRAM became less profitable, fewer wafer starts were allocated to DRAM and more allocated to other products, eventually to the point that they were making almost no DRAM. They realized what had happened AFTER the fact.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22, 2009 @04:46PM (#28428545)

    Kodachrome was killed by Fuji's Velvia and Kodak's own Ektachrome E100-series professional films years ago. They're both much easier to process (cheaper and more environmentally friendly), as archival, and provide a variety of color palettes to choose from. K64 was around for nostalgia, and nostalgia kept people buying it and Dwayne's processing it for many years beyond what made economic sense.

    Polaroid "died" within the past year, moron, not long ago, and there's a group trying to resuscitate it. Polaroid sheet film is not equalled by anything in the digi-toy world, especially type 55.

    If you want to know how long Kodak will keep a product going, they discontinued their last dry plate film in 2002. That's an emulsion on a glass plate, a technology that Kodak introduced in 1879 (replacing the wet plate technology, look it up). A flexible transparent base for film was introduced in 1899, meaning they kept the "outdated" glass plate technology going for 103 years after its replacement came along.

  • by bzzfzz ( 1542813 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @05:04PM (#28428895)

    Most slashdot readers are probably not aware of what Kodachrome is, which is necessary to understand in order to see why Kodak is discontinuing it.

    Kodachrome uses chemical technology that is essentially unchanged from the 1930s. Instead of embedded dye in the film emulsion, as is done in all other color films in use today, the film is essentially black and white, with filter layers, and the dyes are added during processing. Further complicating processing is a requirement for exposure to light of particular colors and intensities between chemical baths. Because of the complicated processing and the tight coupling between the nature of the film and the details of the processing steps, there has been no change to the Kodachrome technology since the introduction of the rarely-used higher speed Kodachrome in the early 1970s.

    Meanwhile, competing slide films (Velvia, metioned upthread, also Kodak's older Ektachrome and more recent Lumiere and E100VS series films) continued to improve at least through the late 1990s. In addition to processing easy enough that it can be done in a home lab, these films are higher speed, higher resolution, less grainy, and offer more saturated colors. Continued production of Kodachrome (or, more likely, continued release of emulsions that have been in climate controlled storage for many years) has mainly served a tiny niche of photographers who have built a personal style around the film, plus a few curious newcomers.

    Aside from the aforementioned "personal photographic style" considerations, Kodachrome has been practically obsolete for around 30 years, because starting around 1975 or so the last of the serious problems with E-6 process films (Ektachrome etc) -- stability during lengthy archival storage and shadow detail -- were solved.

    The presence of good alternatives in other transparency films makes this a non-event. Should we see the day when transparency film is categorically unavailable, that will be an occasion for much greater wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I used to be a astrophotographer and Kodachrome had much better color and sensitivity than Ektachrome or negative color film. However, I haven't dabble in astrophotography for over 20 years but what I see on astronomy websites from people using digital SLRs it appears that most film is dead, except for evidence photography. As for evidence photography, since there is a negative/positive that if you alter it will show unlike digital photography.

  • by QuatermassX ( 808146 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @05:30PM (#28429337) Homepage

    I never really thought I'd be so saddened by the loss of any film stock, but I reconnected with Kodachrome through a massive effort to scan over a thousand slides from my family's life in 2008 - 75% of which were Kodachrome.

    The two most beautiful pictures of myself and my sister [] were made on 35mm Kodachrome using my father's Pentax K1000.

    30-something years later I made a picture of my Mum and the image felt dreamy and at the same time the level of detail was unflinching. I wish I had used the whole roll making pictures of my family.

    Perhaps I'll use those last three rolls in my fridge for pictures of people I love. A fitting end to this way of interpreting the world.

    The Kodachrome look now firmly passes into the realm of nostalgia.

  • by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @06:01PM (#28429843)
    My canon point+shoot digitla is great and I still carry it, but it's rare that I take the time to get a good photo, they are mostly snapshots. I now have a cheap 6x6 TLR that shoots on roll film. There's something about the 6x6 film format, with all its impracticality, that helps me enjoy the moment of shooting the picture and enjoy the resulting photo more. Even if I still am a lousy photographer.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22, 2009 @06:25PM (#28430193)

    as many have already pointed out Kodachrome has been replaced by better film ... thats the real story here it has nothing to do with dropping film for digital... kodak has just released Ektar and the take up has been big. Fuji just re-released Velvia in ISO50 ...
    If film is nolonger cost effective why have Kodak spend so much R&D money on Ektar ?

    There is a film revival happeing at the moment as professionals and serious amateurs return to film, for many reasons.


  • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @07:16PM (#28431055)

    Film still beats digital in low-light, high-ISO situations. If you just snap pix with your phone, you won't care. If you make a living with your camers, you will.

    Yes, the very best digital cameras are very good, but their film equivalents are significantly cheaper.

    • by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @08:33PM (#28432213)


      Seriously, i am not sure what you are talking about...
      Film has _some_ advantages, i will admit it. But low-light performance is NOT one of them.
      In fact, it is telling that the area where you need best low light performance was the first to switch to CCDs (Astronomy).

      Modern pro-DSRL can make pictures at ISO 12800 and higher, with reasonable noise levels (consumer DSRL can still do 800 or 1600 without looking too crappy).
      Any film that would try to match that would look like a nice case of modern art, and not a photograph.

      • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Monday June 22, 2009 @08:45PM (#28432367)

        A $200 digital point-and-shoot will typically produce more noise at ISO's of say, 800 and up than an equivalently priced film point-and-shoot.

        The fact that the very best digitals are capable of extreme ISO settings is relevant only to the few who can afford them.

        Beyond that, film vs. digital is a pointless discussion. On the one hand, some diehards refuse to see any value in digital, and, on the other, some folks always equate "digital" with "better". Both positions are wrong.

        There remains a strong community of film users. Whether film is "better" is not the point. The point is they like film. People who are cellphone shooters and think everything about photography can be summed up in megapixels and resolution might not understand.

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll