Kodak Retires Kodachrome After 74 Years

[dd74]

Originally Posted by slodave

^^ Post processing

There is more to HDR than just letting a computer have at it.

I'm sure. But call me old school. Computers and digital doesn't do it for me. I have to shoot photos with a digital almost daily, and it is is a convenience. There's nothing soulful, IMO, about the outcome. Just point, shoot, publish.

Meanwhile, you know how to develop film, right? It's really gratifying, IMO.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by dd74

I'm sure. But call me old school. Computers and digital doesn't do it for me. I have to shoot photos with a digital almost daily, and it is is a convenience. There's nothing soulful, IMO, about the outcome. Just point, shoot, publish.

Meanwhile, you know how to develop film, right? It's really gratifying, IMO.

Yes, I grew up with a dark room in my parents house.

I was a believer in film up until about a year ago. After moving into the dSLR world and also seeing what my dad produces - he has the high end printer and paper, I was sold. Yes, it takes time in front of a computer, but there was also time needed to develop proper B&W and color - especially color.

[RWebb]

All imaging devices have a dynamic range - including your own eyeballs.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by RWebb

All imaging devices have a dynamic range - including your own eyeballs.

Right, but our eyes have the best DR of the above listed. Which was what I was going for. Our eyes allow us to see way more than any camera can.

[Tim Walsh]

wow and BH and Adorama are already sold out. I've never used it, but I wanted to try it before it went away.. figures.

[KNS]

Regular film isn't dead yet. I was passing by a one hour photo place the other day and asked the gal how many people still bring in film. Expecting her to mention a very low percentage, she said "about half and half". I was surprised. She said a lot people, even younger ones, still just like film better.

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by dd74

I'm sure. But call me old school. Computers and digital doesn't do it for me. I have to shoot photos with a digital almost daily, and it is is a convenience. There's nothing soulful, IMO, about the outcome. Just point, shoot, publish.

Meanwhile, you know how to develop film, right? It's really gratifying, IMO.

I totally understand your point. Picked up the cameras again a few years ago, this time digital. I have a 50d canon and have been doing some on again, off again photography. The high end dslrs offer every creative reward that my old leica and minolta systems did, with the exception of the darkroom. However, the theory seems to be very similar and mastering the software (which I will never be able to do) is like the dark room.

I was thinking of getting some red light bulbs by my computer to get the feel of the darkroom. But how do you recreate the smell of developer and fixer?

[craigster59]

I posted this in the "Random Pics", but all that's old is new again. I've been thinking about learning tintype photography, great photo medium to work in..




and a guy who has classes..
http://www.johncoffer.com/

[Danimal16]

What is a good high end printer for digital prints?

[piscator]

I find the 'back-lighting' which is inherent to 'on-screen' digital photography extremely artificial. In nature, 99% of the color we experience comes from reflected light sources, not projected light.

What we see as 'Guard Red' is light traveling through the Porsche paint, bouncing off the primer and back through the paint a second time, on the way to our eye. The light is filtered twice, by the paint pigments before lodging in our retinas.

Digital photography projects a 'computer corrected' idea of "Guard Red" to our eye, which should be the same theoretically, but somehow isn't. Usually, it looks much more vibrant or sometimes oversaturated. In the printing industry we'd say the color "pops" which sometimes means it looks "more real, than real".

That's not necessarily 'bad' -- if that's the effect you're striving for. For years, Kodak displayed a 'back-lit' panorama in Grand Central Station using gigantic color 'slides' that was 'drop-dead gorgeous' -- but somehow always looked "too good".

My sister is fine photographer and on her 'Macbook' showed me a recent shot of her Golden Retreiver in the grass, chewing a carrot. It knocked me out!! The dog's fur glistened, each blade of grass stood at attention, the carrot was vibrantly orange, etc. etc. I spent thirty years in the graphics industry and to me it seems like a PERFECT photo -- it just doesn't look like any dog, grass, or carrot I will ever, actually, see in nature -- it looks BETTER than the real thing!

piscator

[campbellcj]

Re. the resolution wars -- keep in mind that medium or large-format film provides an image surface that is magnitudes larger than a digital P&S or partial/full-frame 35mm camera. (Think Ansel Adams for example). Of course there are also medium-format digital backs with insane resolutions coming out these days - like 30-40+ megapixels but they also cost $30-40,000.

Regular Joes like most of us do not need that stuff (or want to lug it around) and the DSLR's are amazingly good these days. I am often amazed by the digital gear I have, which often makes me look a helluva lot better than I am. But I also think film is fun too. I have not tried developing my own B&W but may dive into that soon, just for kicks.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

In five years I suspect 20 megapixel cameras will be selling at wally mart for a hundred bucks.

One nice thing about technology, obsolescence makes today's impossibilities tomorrow's cheap junk.

[dad911]

Film will make a nostalgic re-appearance, in 20 years, like albums, tube-audio, and 70's muscle-cars.....

Unless, of course, all of the processing chemicals are banned....