Kodak Retires Kodachrome After 74 Years
 

I guess that means now the only thing to come in a little yellow box is going to be Woody Allen.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1245793306.jpghttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1245793321.jpg

And even though the live action "Cat in the Hat " movie didn't do well at the boxoffice, Woody's going to try his hand at directing a Dr. Seuss book,
"Hop on Pop"

Gives me such nice bright colors...

sad

but I have to admit - I haven't shot it in years, desppite running upwards of 20,000 frames thru various SLR bodies...

I haven't used it in years either. I shot many famous F1 and Indy drivers with it.

All these bright bulbs on this thread and no one's commented on Kev's analogy? LMAO! :D

Digital's better anyway - saves the environment or whatever. SmileWavy

I kind of touched on it...

it made me chuckle.......in a Micheal Jackson kind of way.

Poor Kodakchrome. . . . . . Aww.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1245802492.jpg

I actually still shoot 35mm. Kind of a bummer. I think Fuji will be the only mfr. left in any quantity.

I wonder if demand for negative film is holding up better, simply because the photographer can do more creative darkroom stuff w/ neg film and esp w/ B&W neg.

I used to be concerned that B&W film would no longer be available. I'm no longer worried about it. The equipment and facilities to make it are there, and as big companies like Kodak drop out, small companies will step in with operations scaled to a niche market and make artisanal B&W, priced accordingly. The medium will survive, just as oil paints are still available centuries after painting became "obsolete" as a mass medium.

That's my theory, anyway.

Probably true.

I dislike the thought of having computerized, power-dependent, battery-powered stuff when conventional film does just fine (and doesn't need batteries) but there are some very cool products coming out now in the field of digital photography. The raw file resolution now is starting to get (on the high-end cameras) even better than what a fine-grain traditional film could capture. So there's actually more information in each image. That's quite an accomplishment and can lead (assuming we continue to trend this way) to some amazingly high-resolution enlargements/large format imagery in the future.

My brother just got a new Cannon body as an engagement present - think it was 12.5 megapixels or thereabouts - that's pretty gosh-darned good. The professional SLRs I think are up around 15.0, which is pretty amazing. And they continue to improve...

I still do like the simplicity of my good ol' Pentax K1000 35mm though. Simple, mechanical, easy, reliable. Just like my 911. ;)

I still like to shoot with film. I have an old Konica Autoreflex T that still takes incredible pictures. Plus a Minolta maxxum. I know digital has come a long way, but you can never beat the quality of standard film.

I've been playing Paul Simon tunes in Kodachrome's memory.

Actually I'm surprised they lasted this long.

Been shooting digi for over 10 years.

That's the point - it's now getting to a point where you actually CAN!

The "grains" in conventional film are only so small - one reason why you can only blow up a film photograph so far before it starts getting "grainy". Also the reason (as I'm sure you know) why professional photography uses slow, fine-grain (low-ASA) film, which requires a ton of light to expose. I've done a ton of 35mm photography on 25 ASA film which is a pain to work with (lighting is a pain) but enables me to blow up the photos to very large sizes (11x17+) without any visible loss of crispness. If I'd done it with 400 or 1000 film yeah it'd be a lot easier, but the actual "information" would be less, since the grains are so much larger - and this would be evident if trying to enlarge the image.

The new digital cameras are actually getting to resolutions that approximate the same "information" level as conventional film. The number of pixels is approximating the number of grains in the regular film. This is a HUGE milestone and actually makes digital photography as a medium a lot more "legit" - at least in my mind. Pretty cool stuff...

Digital has already surpassed film. Most amateurs just don't have the $ for the equipment. On the Nikon side, the D3x at 24 MP an create huge prints with no noticeable noise. It helps to have a high end printer and paper too.

in resolution.

Digital has virtually NO dynamic range, and the res. is certainly nowhere near a view camera.

That said, I use digital all the time now. I should get out the Hassy or the F3, FA, Fm2, or N90 Nikons, but I just haven't...

Film doesn't really have dynamic range either. It's not possible. Now, digital HDR can produce some fantastic dynamic range. I'm not talking about the over saturated images.

EDIT: I did find this:
A proper HDR will put film to shame.

Blah! I'd like to see Eisenstadt react to that, or more modern, Chuck Close or Sally Mann. Half of the creativity happened in the dark room with contrast, different techniques, etc.

A proper HDR is about as exciting as a computer program writing War and Peace w/o Dostoevsky.

http://www.sallymann.org/candycigarette2.jpg
How would digital capture the rawness of this?

^^ Post processing :D

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