Kodachrome II
As I mentioned in my blog last week, Kodak has announced it is the end of the line for Kodachrome, one of its best known brands.
A few of you have since e-mailed me pictures taken on Kodachrome so I thought it would be good to share a few such as the one above by Daniel Furon.
Before I do that though, Richard Hannah, asked to see the picture of Martina Navratilova I mentioned in my article as I promised to retrieve it from our archive. Well, all I can say is that I looked and it's not there. Perhaps it was kept aside by the photographer, or maybe it has been lost in the intervening years, either way, it's a shame.
Anyway, here are a few of your Kodachrome moments.
Colin Smith sent this photo (above) he shot in 1979, using his first SLR, a Praktica L with a Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 lens. He adds:
"I had no light meter, so I must have guessed right with the indoors exposure on this occasion."
Daniel Jameson said about his picture of cactus:
"This was taken last summer in the Gothenburg Botanic Gardens. I don't use Kodachome very often, but I've just ordered a final roll for a One Last Roll project. Sad to see a 74-year-old process go which, although stupidly complex by today's standards, clearly works brilliantly."
Doug Steley said:
"I took this picture of a sand dune near Windorah, Queensland, Australia, on 64 ASA Kodachrome, nothing did RED like Kodachrome.
"I am heading back out there this year with a Nikon D700 and the same lens this was taken with. I will be interested to see what the difference is 15 years later on.
"I know the benefits and the freedom digital gives photographers but I do miss the old days when every shot counted and every time you pressed the shutter button you heard the dollar coin drop!
"I learned photography using 5"X4" sheet film many times we were allowed two sheets of film to photograph a subject and get it right."
Many thanks for sharing those magic moments.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ahhh, yes; the red effect. Never could really get on with it in truth, and always thought it was me and not the film.
But, we did make every shot count and here the money drop in the slot as the shutter fired. Now...how many "older" photographers still just fire off one digi shot and still worry [needlessly] about making each one count ?
Maybe camera manufacturers should have a special "wet film" setting; one shot over a set time. Very retro.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr.Phil,
For last two photos, my comments were published by BBC.
Thanks.
Your Picture of Kodak,the end of the line of Kodachrome is very good.But to note that,they are ending that name is not withstanding of emotions to this product.
Your picture of a sand dune near Queensland is excellent.This picture is very lovely to see and to possess.
Thanks for showing the brilliance of your works to BBC.
Complain about this comment
The fact that you have mislaid the picture of Martina Navratilova demonstrates perfectly one of the advantages of digital: it is easy to make multiple copies of a photo, all identical to the original, so you can store them in different places.
Although transparencies and negatives can be copied, it is a time-consuming process that costs money, and the results are never as good as the original - you always lose some shadow and highlight detail.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS