That last roll of Kodachrome ever
 

Last Kodachrome roll processed in Parsons | Business News for Wichita Kansas | Local Journal of Wichita Business News and Kansas Business News | Wichita Eagle

Another victim of digital photography.

Sad day. As Paul Simon said, the greens of summer. Some colors, captured on Kodachrome, are STUNNING.

Yep, and in 100 years it will still look good. How are we ever going to store all the digital photos for long term?

Well, 10,000 digital photos are MUCH easier to store than 10,000 prints.

pretty sure kodachrome is slide film

Boo hoo. Such a sad day. Almost as sad as when the last steam engine was made. Or the last telegraph, or the last slide rule.....

Oh where, oh where will we store all those digital images??


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1280176893.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1280176913.jpg

I'm with the Viking. Who cares, it's day is over- turn the page.

It is. I have a ton of 35mm slides I've shot over the years - and good old fashioned 35mm prints too.

I know digital photography has come a long way and all, but it just doesn't strike me as particularly valuable. With conventional film photography, each shot HAS to count. You can't just blast away and take a thousand stills and if three of them happen to be good, call yourself a great photographer. Yet that's what the digital medium does - it cheapens the process and dumbs it down. There is no longer "photography", there are "digital snapshots". Yes, these have value in their own way but it's just not the same.

I'll never get rid of my venerable Pentax K1000. Never. I might get a cool fancy-schmancy digital SLR at some point but I bet if I do I still always love the 35mm one more.

You can UNDERSTAND a 35mm. You know how it works. It's comprehensible by the average human being. You can take it apart and fix it. You can't do that with a digital - it's still an enigmatic (and proprietary, usually) black box. No thanks. That's devoid of artistic merit to me. Even if it does yield cool results sometimes.

My $200 sony 12.1 megapixel takes fantastic pix if i do my part. I never even knew how much i liked photography until i got my digital because film was always so freakin' expensive for the old style cameras that i never really got to play around and experiment with what i could do with a camera until i could do it for free.

I take probably 100 pix a week, and it doesn't cost a dime. Now, instead of waiting for that "perfect shot," i can snap away to my heart's content without worrying about "being out of film," should the shot i really want present itself.

I love my digital camera.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...s/6a6d0015.jpg
(So does my model, lol)

Lets see, to properly archive photographic negatives or film, it has to be kept cold (fridge or freezer), dry and dark. Oh yeah, don't touch it either as scratches are irreversible. So buy a dessicated freezer, put in the film and never move it again.

To store and backup my digital photos, I go to Costco and buy 1Tb drives for $100. Use one, have another as a backup that I rotate with one stored offsite.

If you are willing to learn new things, you can understand how a CMOS image sensor works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor

Digital cameras have their place, and it makes sense that they are FAR more popular than film cameras, and getting more popular all the time.

But......film cameras DO something to the film. The way the image will be laid on the film, the depth of field, the shadows, the way the light will play out. Digital cameras can approximate that, if the processor knows what he's doing. But there is something that film cameras do that digital cameras don't.

Here's a better one:

ShortCourses-Image Sensors—Introduction

Yes. Deteriorate over time.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...dCSKatana3.jpg
Took this one with my digicam, to me it looks magnificent.

Film looks better. to me. I dont care how many mega pixels, I have the Nikon D5000 which is an awesome digital camera. Film still looks better.

analog is analog and digital is digital. Different workflows, different vibe. The memes of photography came out of analog, and most still hold even though there is no reason for some of them. With larger sensors getting cheaper, you're beginning to see some amazing output but some still choose film.

What is interesting is that we have relatively short lifespans on a number of (analog) technologies. For example film and vinyl audio recording. The use of digital for representation has happened incredibly fast. The repercussions of this are just starting to pop up.

This is one of your better pictures. Pretty spectacular IMHO.

Best,
Tom

That is great for short term storage but long term storage is different. No hard drive from today will be readable in 50 years. They will look at a huge hard drive and wonder how something so big could store so little.

Try to plug in and read a MFM format hard drive from just 15 years ago. If it even works the data format will not work on a modern computer. You will need to keep one of the old style computers with DOS on it to make it read.

I work with images that average one gig each. Try to backup a few terabytes of data. It will take days to copy.

Digital is here to stay, but is will never replace film completely. I can pull a negative from our archives from 1947 and scan it and it looks great. I have no idea how we can keep the petabytes of storage we will need to keep all the current imagery we will make and have it useable in 2147. It will not be my problem.

There is nothing like sitting down with a shoebox full of photos taken 20 years ago.

Sailchef hit it on the head.
Its the experience of finding and sorting to find the "treasures".