What will you replace Kodachrome with?

[jpberger]

I agree velvia 100h gets an undeserved bad rap. It really ought to be called something different like provia-c or something. I like the extra contrast for shooting with old single coated lenses.

The kodachrome shots that I've been awestruck by have almost always been the old kodachrome II or kodachrome 25-- partly because they become a sort of hyperreal window to the past. Ektar100 is great once you figure out how to expose it, but for most things I really find the various pro negative films from fuji and kodak are all amazing. I shoot chromes mainly to work on my exposure skills.

 

[tjaded]

For me, there isn't a film that replaces Kodachrome. There are tons of good E-6 films that I have shot and will continue to shoot, but not as a replacement for Kodachrome. I'm going to enjoy it while I can though, that is for sure!

 

[StorminMatt]

For me, there isn't a film that replaces Kodachrome. There are tons of good E-6 films that I have shot and will continue to shoot, but not as a replacement for Kodachrome. I'm going to enjoy it while I can though, that is for sure!

Good point. NO film can replace Kodachrome. When Kodachrome is dead and gone, there are certainly other films that we can (and will) turn to. But it's not going to be a matter of finding something that looks like Kodachrome (because NOTHING does). Rather, it will be a matter of finding something that we find pleasing (albeit, in a completely different way from Kodachrome).

 

[bdial]

Ektar comes pretty close, too bad they don't make it in sheet sizes.

 

[cooltouch]

I've just recently gotten back into slide photography after a rather long absence. Back in the day, if I wasn't shooting Kodachrome, I was usually shooting plain old Fujichrome 100, and I liked it a lot. Nowadays, the variety is rather bewildering. So far, I've tried only Elite Chrome 100, although I have a roll of Fuji Sensia 100 loaded in one of my cameras right now. So far I've been pleased with Elite Chrome. Very fine grain and good saturation. I'm about to place an order at Freestyle, and I think I'll go ahead and try a few different emulsions to see if I can find a new preference.

 

[liquid695]

Kodak E100G and Fuji Astia 100F, not the same as K64 but are the best options that I have to substitute the great loss of kodachrome slide film

 

[nickandre]

you don't replace kodachrome. you just shoot a different type of film.

 

[liquid695]

You are completely right Nicholas...

 

[Emulsion]

As far as I know there is no film that lasts as well as Kodachrome. The dyes appear to be very stable and less prone to fading than E6.

 

[StorminMatt]

Ektar comes pretty close, too bad they don't make it in sheet sizes.

When I can stick Ektar into a slide projector or view it on a light table, I will consider it as a Kodachrome replacement.

As far as I know there is no film that lasts as well as Kodachrome. The dyes appear to be very stable and less prone to fading than E6.

When it comes to long life, the best alternative is probably actually digital.

 

[Emulsion]

When it comes to long life, the best alternative is probably actually digital.

I thought that as well until it was pointed out my PC can't read 8" floppy disks, or 5.25", 3.5" floppy disks. These were very common formats just a decade ago. There are hdd and tape formats that have now vanished as well. The only way to ensure their survival is to keep the electronics archived as well. That is difficult! Electronics can be very difficult to keep alive, after time many electronic components fail (e.g capacitors, and even semi's such as eproms).

A few years ago I had a computer tape that contained important data. Trying to find someone with the gear to read it was a challenge.

I came across this recently:
"Those files, made in the mid 90s, are completely unreadable, because the vendors went out of business, or they were using some sort of proprietary file format. A custom directory system that informs the operating systems how the files or data are arranged, can’t be used without doing a lot of archeology in a sense to try to figure out what those files mean. In the meantime, the 35mm recorded negative is now the defacto original because the digital data is, in effect, unusable."
http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue/Articles/Story.cfm?StoryID=1071

The above article is referring to files made in the mid-90s. Only 15 years ago.

Hopefully the cd-rom and DVD will last a long time. Blue-ray may make it obsolete technology though.

Kodachrome from the 1950's if it doesn't have fungus or vinegar syndrome is generally easy to read though

Emulsion.

 

[StorminMatt]

You can't really compare the inability to read the obsolete formats of the 1980s with what might happen with CD-roms and DVD-roms in the future. There are HUGE differences between computers at that time and those today. Specifically, the masses did not have computers back then. And personal computers back then were completely incapable of storing or processing digital images of any kind of quality. In other words, few people these days have any reason to be able to read old floppy disks. But with SO many people storing images on CDs and DVDs these days, it is virtually guaranteed that people will be wanting to read these media in the future. In other words, it is MOST unlikely that they will be unreadable in the future.

Now HERE'S a question: how good are C41 prints and negatives going to look 20-30 years from now? Probably not as good as digital files from a 20-30 year old CD/DVD. Thus far, Kodachrome and Ilfochromes are the only color film products which have been proven to hold up in the long run.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd use Velvia 50 with an 81A for the two or three times per year I want something close to the Kodachrome look. Not the same at all, but I am not sure what else I would do.

 

[Q.G.]

When I can stick Ektar into a slide projector or view it on a light table, I will consider it as a Kodachrome replacement.

You can...

When it comes to long life, the best alternative is probably actually digital.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Talk about not being able to read old tapes and such, i think, rather point towards people not knowing how to keep things than to restrictions imposed by media or formats.

For instance, if you keep a tape for 15 years, you must also keep the tape drive and whatever you need to use that for that period of time.
The moment you get rid of the means to access the data, you will lose the data too.
So when you know that, for instance, your CDs won't live forever, you should do what is needed to carry the info they contain over to something that will outlive the original datamedium (another, fresh CD will do).

Stories about not being able to access 15 year old tapes tell more about people making fundamental mistakes than about the limits of the media used to store things.
When you know that, say, your tape drive goes 'bad' (can be anything from wearing out to becoming obsolete technology), you also know it is time to save the info stored on your tapes to another medium.
There is absolutely no reason why the lifespan of storage media would make you lose the data stored. (Except, of course, being too lazy to do something when you still can).

 

[brianmquinn]

I know people that had all of their photos in digital format. Then POOF, they had photos at all.

 

[Dawes71]

Now HERE'S a question: how good are C41 prints and negatives going to look 20-30 years from now? Probably not as good as digital files from a 20-30 year old CD/DVD. Thus far, Kodachrome and Ilfochromes are the only color film products which have been proven to hold up in the long run.

Funny you should say that, my negs from the late 80s are very good and I'd be quite happy to compare them to 20+ year old digital files!

 

[mopar_guy]

Kodachrome: The Fountain of Youth?

On Christmas morning, my wife and I were at our son's house. Naturally I had my camera and I had some Kodachrome 64 loaded. I was able to get some good looking pictures of our grandchildren (the oldest is about 10 and the youngest is five). If somebody keeps these slides, they should look great in 60 years.

 

[StorminMatt]

You can...

Please elaborate. Oh, and looking at negatives on a light table or mounting them and sticking them in a slide projector don't count. I'm talking about viewing positive transparencies. And before you mention getting C41 transparencies on Vision cine print film from Dale's, they don't do it anymore. And the quality was never good to begin with.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, well positive transparencies, like negatives, will last a long, long, long time in archival storage boxes and/or folders, as mine are stored. My Kodachromes from the 1970s and 80s are still as brilliant today as then. The same applies to Fujichrome trannies; storage rather than their makeup has a greater bearing on their longevity. I am very doubtful digital image files will will be coherent 10-20 years from now. I'm not putting any faith in the medium for fine art / exhibition / archival storage etc. at all at this point in time, especially with that equipment's entrenched rapid redundancy. Happy is he with film!

 

[Some_Gearhead]

Sigh....
Kodachrome was the best although I couldn't process it.
Sending it to labs invariably had an auto slicer get cross indexed and destroy one of the stereo pair.
Looking at 36 slides that would go into the trash, as I don't project 2D, was an exercise in self flagellation.
So I changed over a to Fuji Provia 100 a decade ago. It wasn't as good. But at least I got what I shot!

As I process the last of my Fuji Provia slides I am looking at the possibility of putting my twin Nikon F3-HP pair to its final rest.
I have a 100 meter roll of Provia 100 in my non-auto defrost fridge, right next to my hops. But, I'll probably never use that film.

Now, I am picking up a pair of Canon A720 IS running SPM (Stereo Photo Maker) and bemoaning the loss of control I had with my Nikons.
And although I shot reversal film, it still had more latitude than this digital abomination.

Time marches on, but regrettably it does not always insure technical progression.
The mass of the masses have degraded our photographic excellence.
First Kodachrome,
Now this digital thing supplants my cherished F3's.
I'm holding onto hope that some enterprising soul will introduce a 32MP high latitude back for my Nikons.
That, and someday pigs will fly....

OK, I'm depressed enough already.
I need a beer.

 

[PKM-25]

I just got back 26 rolls of Kodachrome taken on New Year's week in Times Square from Dwayne's a few hours ago....there is no replacement for this film for me, it is absolutely spectacular.

And it just gets better and better everyday when ever I get it back from the lab.

 

[Moose38]

But eventully the lab processing will end. I really never cared for slides them self. Kodachrome for me was used for it's rich color in my prints.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

<<What will you replace Kodachrome with?>>

Tears

 

[railwayman3]

Now HERE'S a question: how good are C41 prints and negatives going to look 20-30 years from now? Probably not as good as digital files from a 20-30 year old CD/DVD. Thus far, Kodachrome and Ilfochromes are the only color film products which have been proven to hold up in the long run.

It's perhaps not quite as clear-cut as that...well-processed and properly stored color film of many makes (particularly modern films) will last well (my Grandfather's 1930's Dufaycolor still looks good, but that's perhaps not a fair comparison ). It's just under 30 years since music CD's were marketed (only two years after 3.5 in floppies...remember them?), writeable computer CD's and DVD's are rather more recent.

Noting that music CD's are being displaced by downloads, data storage may well be going down the solid-state route, and DVD's are being replaced by Blue-ray, Hard-disc recorders and video on demand, I wouldn't bet on current format digital files being readable in 20 years.

Sorry if that's getting a bit OT. (But that's why I won't be replacing K14 with digital.)

 

[Prest_400]

Sigh....
Kodachrome was the best although I couldn't process it.
Sending it to labs invariably had an auto slicer get cross indexed and destroy one of the stereo pair.
Looking at 36 slides that would go into the trash, as I don't project 2D, was an exercise in self flagellation.
So I changed over a to Fuji Provia 100 a decade ago. It wasn't as good. But at least I got what I shot!

As I process the last of my Fuji Provia slides I am looking at the possibility of putting my twin Nikon F3-HP pair to its final rest.
I have a 100 meter roll of Provia 100 in my non-auto defrost fridge, right next to my hops. But, I'll probably never use that film.

Now, I am picking up a pair of Canon A720 IS running SPM (Stereo Photo Maker) and bemoaning the loss of control I had with my Nikons.
And although I shot reversal film, it still had more latitude than this digital abomination.

Time marches on, but regrettably it does not always insure technical progression.
The mass of the masses have degraded our photographic excellence.
First Kodachrome,
Now this digital thing supplants my cherished F3's.
I'm holding onto hope that some enterprising soul will introduce a 32MP high latitude back for my Nikons.
That, and someday pigs will fly....

OK, I'm depressed enough already.
I need a beer.

No one has obligated you to switch from the F3HP's. So, if the little digital thingies aren't what suit you, and like your F3s, use them again.
For big files, medium format and a decent scanner may be the way. I doubt that anyone will bother with a d*tal back for 35mm's.