Kodachrome sparked my interest in Analog Photography!

[Nzoomed]

If there was one upside to the demise of Kodachrome was that its media attention got me shooting film again, namely E6 reversal films.

No im not a professional photographer, but i do have an interest in photography.

So for anyone rubbishing Kodachrome, think about all the potential interest it has sparked in new photographers as a result of its demise. Surely im not the only one on this planet that this has happened to? lol

Yes id love to see Kodachrome back and so do others, but I accept it will probably never happen. It still gets to me that i never took the opportunity to shoot the stuff in 35mm, although i did shoot a little super8 in it.

However, i dont care if i see any Kodachrome threads here, and i support anyone's efforts in research and study on the film and experimental methods of processing. I say good on them for trying and giving it a go, regardless of the results.

We need more people like this in the photography community who are willing to experiment etc, perhaps some day we will see a unique DIY process that may not give exact K-14 results, but may nonetheless give photographers interesting results such as in the lomography community with cross processed film.

I also feel for those who missed out on the Dwaynes deadline for processing, there are some out there with genuine reasons they did not get it in.

Nuff said.
Ive moved on and am enjoying E6 while I still can!

 

[twelvetone12]

I did lots of kodachrome 40 in Super8 until it was discontinued in 2006. It was the cheapest and most convenient (!) way to do super8 in Italy at the time. I miss it mostly for the convenience.
I did some slides too, but in was very expensive and inconvenient in respect to E6, so I did only a couple rolls (and for the last one I missed the 2010 deadline - endend up B&W). I really liked the results.
Nowadays I got again interested in K14 mostly because of the curiosity over it's arcane process and the chemistry involved. I find it fascinating and it stimulates me to enlarge my chemistry and processing knowledge. I think I will experiment on it - not because I hope I can replicate the quality of Kodak's processing but because I find it stimulating to play with it, study, and learn. I sincerely don't get why many people seem to be upset by this.
Regarding a comeback, unless we find a rich guy that wants to invest in kodachrome instead of buying it's own island, I think it will not come back. Or maybe it could come back in a much imperfect form, who knows.
What interests me is that it is a vector for experimenting and learning (as other alt processes and the other color processes are)

 

[Nzoomed]

I did lots of kodachrome 40 in Super8 until it was discontinued in 2006. It was the cheapest and most convenient (!) way to do super8 in Italy at the time. I miss it mostly for the convenience.
I did some slides too, but in was very expensive and inconvenient in respect to E6, so I did only a couple rolls (and for the last one I missed the 2010 deadline - endend up B&W). I really liked the results.
Nowadays I got again interested in K14 mostly because of the curiosity over it's arcane process and the chemistry involved. I find it fascinating and it stimulates me to enlarge my chemistry and processing knowledge. I think I will experiment on it - not because I hope I can replicate the quality of Kodak's processing but because I find it stimulating to play with it, study, and learn. I sincerely don't get why many people seem to be upset by this.
Regarding a comeback, unless we find a rich guy that wants to invest in kodachrome instead of buying it's own island, I think it will not come back. Or maybe it could come back in a much imperfect form, who knows.
What interests me is that it is a vector for experimenting and learning (as other alt processes and the other color processes are)

Yes im along the same lines as you.
It was very popular for Super8, as i believe it had the finest grain compared to E6 offerings. I think a great deal of Kodachrome shooters who missed the stuff were those who were using it as cine film rather than slides.
I would have liked to have shot the stuff to say i had done it and had some photos of me and my family captured on it, but thats about it for me.
Its process and chemistry fascinates me also, and ive learned a great deal from what ive been reading here.

I bought a few rolls and keep a handful in the freezer for one day when i might be able to process the stuff, but until then, that film will never see the light of day.

It is a unique film from a B&W perspective also, because its got 3 seperate layers to it that can be potentially experimented with by different chemistry.

Remember that this film was first invented and developed in a basement, so im sure other people will be able to eventually get some results, albeit different than K-14.

 

[railwayman3]

The process and chemistry of Kodachrome is fascinating to anyone with a little curiosity for historic photographic and scientific matters. But so is any "alternative" historic process, e.g. cyanotype, ambrotype, salt prints, anthotypes, etc., and all these are relatively easily reproducable with simpler chemicals and a little patience. But the more complicated historic processes are just no longer viable (IMHO)....even the processes which are much more simple in principle (Lumiere screen plates, Dufay, original Agfacolor, Technicolor, etc.) are beyond any realistic resurrection

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't call it "Analog" photography. I just call it photography. The demeaning prefixes should apply only to the upstart version.

 

[fdonadio]

I don't call it "Analog" photography. I just call it photography. The demeaning prefixes should apply only to the upstart version.

When I need to make myself clearer than usually necessary, I use the term "traditional photography".


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't. I just ask if they've never seen a real camera before.

 

[fdonadio]

I don't. I just ask if they've never seen a real camera before.

Most of them never did!

I don't really get nervous anymore when I have to explain that the "D" stuff is an adaptation of "traditional" photography, not the other way around.

Now, what really pisses me off is when someone looks at my camera and says something like "does this old camera still work?" At the good times, I just tell them: "this camera will outlast any of these gadgets you call a camera and, most probably, it will outlast YOU!"


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Rather than refer to analog photography I prefer the designation wet photography a more descriptive term which includes all the alternative processes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In this area we have a long-standing tradition of classic photography, so most locals know the difference. You get admiration by shooting film, esp
large format. But a couple weeks ago a polite German tourist couple walked up to me and asked where I found a hundred year old camera. In turn,
I politely replied that if it were a hundred years old the hardware would be tarnished brass, not titanium alloy. They got the point. I never apologize
for what I am doing. There is a pro portrait photographer lady up the road that offers strictly b&w darkroom prints from film. She is always having
to explain herself to techie mindsets. I just tell them to actually look at one of my prints. That shuts them up fast.

 

[OptiKen]

When I think 'analog vs. digital', I'm thinking watches.
When it comes to photography, it's 'film vs. digital'.
I don't know what 'analog' photography really means. When I look at the definition of 'analog', I can't really see how it applies.
I'm into 'Film Photography', as opposed to 'Digital Photography'.

 

[fdonadio]

Rather than refer to analog photography I prefer the designation wet photography a more descriptive term which includes all the alternative processes.

I like this designation... Wet photography.

Yes, I think it works, but requires some explanation for those not familiar with the process.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Nzoomed]

lol, the funny thing is that i almost feel a bit uncomfortable if i pull out my spotmatic or even my olympus XA3, people say alot of comments like "man thats old school" etc lol

Its amazing how fast things have changed, but hey, i get some great photos so im not worried.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Now, what really pisses me off is when someone looks at my camera and says something like "does this old camera still work?" At the good times, I just tell them: "this camera will outlast any of these gadgets you call a camera and, most probably, it will outlast YOU!"

There's also "Can you still get film for that?".

Last year I made a bunch of portraits of friends and coworkers with my Minox. Most did not grasp that it was a film camera, not digital. Only one person, from a former Soviet-bloc country, knew exactly what it was. The prints - and portraits - were great, but most didn't initially comprehend that the prints were made on photographic paper, from a negative, and not an inkjet print from a computer file.

 

[twelvetone12]

There's also "Can you still get film for that?".

For me the mantra generally is: "is that a film camera?", "can you still get film for that?", "Didn't kodak go bankrupt?", "can you stil develop that?", "why should one shoot film and not digital?", "Isn't it impractical?"
Some time ago I hiked the mountains nearby with my very old Zeiss Trona plate camera, and to take a photo it takes some time for the setup. At some point I started noticing that some people were taking photos of me photographing the mountains!
But I like the definition "wet photography"

 

[Nzoomed]

There's also "Can you still get film for that?".

Last year I made a bunch of portraits of friends and coworkers with my Minox. Most did not grasp that it was a film camera, not digital. Only one person, from a former Soviet-bloc country, knew exactly what it was. The prints - and portraits - were great, but most didn't initially comprehend that the prints were made on photographic paper, from a negative, and not an inkjet print from a computer file.

Yeah i get asked that occasionally, its really weird being asked that, especially more so when kids see me load a film and ask me what that's for! lol
Quite sad how fast things have changed, and how ignorant this new generation is who only know how to take photos with their phones.

 

[bvy]

I'm not sure the arrogance is necessary. I've travelled around with all sorts of film cameras, and not once can I remember a time when I was looked down upon by someone with a digital (or no) camera. I get the same questions, of course, but find that they're motivated by genuine curiosity and even a latent interest in what I'm doing. I've had good conversations with people about film photography, and left a number of people more informed than when they met me. Quite often, I even walk away with a good portrait.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Somebody should invent a repellant for cell phones analogous to DEET. After all, those things are basically ectoparasites which get permanently stuck to peoples ears, eyes, or thumbs, and then suck the life out of them.

 

[Diapositivo]

I prefer "traditional photography" or even better "classic(al) photography" because it relates to history, past, tradition. That is a much more interesting way to depict than "wet".
Wet seems sexually excited photography, you know... (in Italian photography is feminine. Fotografia bagnata? Naahhh).

What I think pushes young "digital" people to explore, discover analogue photography is exactly the will to re-discover the old way of doing, the way their parents took the pictures of their first steps, the way the great masters of the past created their masterpieces. Everything traditional, classic, has a perfume!

So "Traditional photography" is "good marketing", and "wet photography" is IMHO bad marketing. And yes, we all should feel embarked in some sort of "marketing campaign" for "real photography".

"Real photography" is also nice because it is literally true, digital photography not becoming "real" until the print is obtained, while film photography is "real" because we have something we can touch in our hands.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't do it either because it is classic or old or reminiscent of something past. I do it because for me it's the best way to get from Point A to Point B.
I do it because I hate computers, like the one I'm forced to sit at for eight hours today. I like being outdoors, actually discovering things, and then
trying to translate my experience into a print that expresses my impressions as acutely as possible. I find darkroom work to be a distinctly sharper
scalpel than the newer alternatives - not that there is anything wrong with those, if you gravitate that way. I don't. I'm itching to retire - just six months away and then you'll probably never hear from me again except incidentally.

 

[twelvetone12]

I like how the french call it: Photographie argentique. More or less "silver photography"

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not sure the arrogance is necessary. I've travelled around with all sorts of film cameras, and not once can I remember a time when I was looked down upon by someone with a digital (or no) camera. I get the same questions, of course, but find that they're motivated by genuine curiosity and even a latent interest in what I'm doing. I've had good conversations with people about film photography, and left a number of people more informed than when they met me. Quite often, I even walk away with a good portrait.

I have had a much different experience. A few years ago I was taking photographs with my Hasselblad and a man told me that his son's digital camera could beat my camera in every way. I said to him, "You must be so proud that his son had so much money that he could waste it."

 

[Ian Grant]

While I saw a quite a few Kodachromes when young they didn't enthuse me, I had my fathers old folding camera at the age of 2 not long after my sister was born, no film though That would have been the point (1956) when my father upgraded to a Kodak 828 Bantam Colorsnap and he then only used Kodachrome. I still have the slides.

Instead I was enthused by a school teacher who was a keen and accomplished photographer, who did his own B&W processing and printing, there was a quality way better than any Kodachromes I'd seen. I'd add that my fathers Kodachromes improved slightly around the same time because of the introduction of Kodachrome II.

I'm sure my early lack of enthusiasm for Kodachrome was mostly down to the relatively poor exposures my father had using the 828 Bantam Colorsnap, because when I tried Kodachrome II for myself I had superb results. I don't know whether the Kodak Ltd, Harrow, Kodachrome was totally identical to the Eastman Kodak product. I know when I really got into photography seriously in the late 1960's Tri-X differed between 3 coating plants, US, Canada and the UK and Kodak developers recommended different times and EI's depending on where the films was made. This was mainly an issue for photo-journalists traveling abroad.

Ian

 

[bvy]

I have had a much different experience. A few years ago I was taking photographs with my Hasselblad and a man told me that his son's digital camera could beat my camera in every way. I said to him, "You must be so proud that his son had so much money that he could waste it."

Well, those types deserve what they get.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh for crying out loud. Who really gives a damn about the method of image production, if the image is good? If the tool used to capture the image was the right tool for the job, then the image will be as good as the photographer creating it. If the medium used is the right medium for the image, then the image will sing, regardless of the medium used. If it's the wrong medium, then no amount of false praise is going to save it. Just get quit gasbagging, get out there, shoot, and produce images!