Kodachrome bye bye

[riogrande]

Yikes!

For those who still like 35 mm....

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31486343/ns/business-us_business/

...for those who went digital remember those rolls you used to put in the camera?

[Johan Dees]

then you use www.poladroid.net for something like that..!

[stansdds]

I never had a Nikon, but I do still own a couple of Pentax MV cameras. I have gone digital, but some of the color saturation just isn't quite the same. The biggest advantage of digital is not buying and processing film, but I don't think digital is any better than a good 35 mm camera and high quality film.



Not my pictures, not my video, but I do enjoy the song.

[Tom/CalClassic]

Yep, an end of an era...

[Wolfgang]

Hi,

bye, bye.

I used for over 20 years analog film SLR's
and since 2006 I use a DSLR.
I never thought the quality will match with film.
But I was very surprised that my low budget
10 MP Canon EOS 400D can produce such a good
quality if I use RAW instead of JPEG.
I'm very happy and never think back to my
analog equipment.
And the newest generation of DSLR's are able
to make full HD videos in cinema quality
if you have the needed "loose cash"
for camera, lenses, tripod etc.

Here a sample clip from Vincent Laforet
with a full format sensor 24X36 DSLR
www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326

From the technical point of view
I have no tears in my eyes about film SLR's
only some sentimental thoughts.

Best Regards
Wolfgang

[dc6tryer]

Hi,

I use a small digital camera for all shots now, but still keep my Nikon Fs and a few FP4s in the fridge for the day all the batteries go south. I am talking post-Apocalypse type scenario here ;D

I know there's a lot of talk about how good digital cameras can be, but for the real story about enlarging images from 35 mm or similar screen-size digital thingies, find this page: www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

It puts digital imagery in it's proper place IMHO !

And, because I'm an old stick in the mud, I think digital photography is a tautology, as only film can produce a photograph, i.e something drawn with light, rather than the mechanical approximation that an electrically generated screen of things make when you push the button on a digital imaging thingy. What irritates me most is the delay before it bothers to wake up and shoot the b****y picturue . You won't get that Bolshie nonsense from a real camera

Luckily, some film companies are still in business and they deserve and need our support!

Andy.

[Wolfgang]

Hi,

What irritates me most is the delay before it bothers to wake up and shoot the b****y picture

0.2 s for modern Canon DSLR's
from cold and dark to shooting mode.
I would be happy if I can get the camera
the quick up to my eye. ;D

Best Regards
Wolfgang

[stansdds]

Yeah, digital cameras vary in the time they take to turn on and the time between the point at which you press the trigger and the point at which the camera actually captures the image.

[Wolfgang]

Hi,

OK, these are the specs of my camera
others like Nikon may vary I don't know.

FPS=3 up to 27 JPEG or 10 RAW.
Startup 0.2s without dust shaking.
Shutter lag=100ms ( newer model incarnations have 90ms,
next higher priced models have 59ms )
Blackout= 170ms

If you want to get up to date, take a deeper look here :
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Best Regards
Wolfgang

[sunny9850]

Not sure if I maybe misunderstood....but it's only this one particular type of film called Kodachrome that is going to run out.
I was driving back to Philly airport and listened to NPR interviewing a photographer describing the differences he sees.

I forgot his name but he took the famous picture of the little Afghani Girl in one of the refugee camps in the late 80s or early 90s.
With Kodachrome.

High quality digital can certainly come very close to, or even better 35mm film. But at least according to this guy certain things just are not going to come out the same. The digital image may even be too real in some cases....and lack just the right amount of change.

Stefan

[Wolfgang]

Hi,

The digital image may even be too real in some cases....and lack just the right amount of change

That's true. , specially for BW photos
The pics can be wide ranged manipulated in Photoshop or other
programs, but in my opinion it really lack's the " experience"
you can have with BW film material and film development
in an own lab.

For color photos I would not subscribe, because you have no
influence in the development process. ( standard method )

The possibility to change the white balance after the shooting
to get a well balanced color is in my opinion far ahead
to the industrial standard method for film material.
I never got an irreversible green or a blue cast with
shooting and processing in RAW mode.


Best Regards
Wolfgang

[Mike]

Glad my old Pentax KM isn't a museum piece yet. Digital is fine and clearly has advantages, but I've had some really first rate results with this old heavyweight, and I hope to get a few more decent shots from it yet.


Cheers,
Mike

[jan]

Hi everyone,
It is too said that it disapears for those who are still using it,but on the the other hand i am convinced that DSLR is still the way to go.
The amound of pixels when you compare to film is still less but where are you gonna use it for!!
Most of the time i am printing it to a A4 format so i don't need a 500 MB picture (it also takes a lot of space) ;D
Most of the people who buy my pictures (i am also a horse photographer ;)when i not do planes) can not see the difference.
It isn't so that i don't like quality,but my pictures are still getting better every year.
And the 20 years experience in analog photography made it easier to make the step up to a professional DSLR.
The stuff i am using is D700 and D300 from nikon with a 20-30 f 2,8 80-200 f 2,8 nikon(this one is the best )and 1 sigma 120-400 lens.
Greets and respect to all whatever youre using,
Jan

[birdguy]

I spent many years as a freelance photographer and then dropped out of it. A couple years ago my interest was tweaked again and I bought a DSLR. I wouldn't trade it back for a film camera for the world.

Mostly I photograph wildlife, birds and waterfowl in particular. And I am getting better shots than I used to with film simply because I can shoot afford to shoot more pictures.

I go out to the wildlife refuge for a day and come back with a couple hundred shots. I process them on my computer and keep any where from six to a dozen of them. I could never afford to do that with film.

I never was good in the dark room but I can do everything my friends did spending hours in the dark room in a few minutes using Photoshop or Corel Paint Shop Pro.

And with the ability to shoot 5 frames a second I can capture astounding shots of birds in flight. I know at least a couple of the 15 or 20 I shot will turn out good.

I print 8x10 pictures and matt them and they are sold at the refuge's gift shop. Many images are also sold as postcards.

I have a Sony A700 with an 18-250 zoom walking around lens; a 70-300 zoom birding lense with super sonic focusing motor, and the only autofocus 500mm reflex lense in production.

For black and white photogrpahy film is superior to digital. But for color images the processing software tools available for your computer makes digital superior to color film in my book.

When I was shooting film I always preferred Fuji film to Kodachrome for my outdoor shots unless I was shooting a sunrise or a sunset. The greens of Fuji brought out the colors of nature best I think.

Noel