« How to Tweak Your Camera's Control Interface | Main | The Misery and Joys of Printing »

December 31, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551a6244a88330148c7365450970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Memory of Kodachrome:

Comments

Happy New Year, Gordon!

Terrific shots.

Seems that no one I've read has noted the irony in all the Kodachrome shots posted on the web over the last week: That not a single one of them was a Kodachrome. They were all digital images!

So the technology that killed off Kodachrome is what we use to honor and memorialize it.

--Marc

>>the technology that killed off Kodachrome is what we use to honor and memorialize it.<<

'Twas always thus. Even in its heyday, Kodachrome images had to be translated into print for most people to see them. Whenever you look at something other than the original transparency you're looking at a picture of a picture. Even so, Kodachrome had a certain "look" that's hard to duplicate with a digital camera (assuming you'd want to, of course).

Even with some of the best 'translators' available, I was never able to get the same look for an image. I was gifted one last roll of Kodachrome by a friend and sent it off to Dwayne's just before the deadline. It'll be fun to take a look at those chromes for old times' sake.

Gordon, thanks for these beautiful Kodachrome images of yours - a fitting tribute to the 75 years of Kodachrome, and, IMHO, the best tribute of all the ones I've seen around the web on this theme.

I agree with you - I shot Kodachrome in my younger days (although a lot more Ektachrome,) but I'm not gonna get broken up by time marching on. After all, we don't shoot many Daguerrotypes anymore, do we?

Ken Rockwell has an interesting take on Kodachrome: he feels that it was obsolete by the '90s with the introduction of Velvia. He also says that its main advantage is that over the decades printers (e.g., at National Geo) had learned to deal with Kodachrome and how to get more out of it than, say, Ektachrome, which was a much younger product.

I tend to agree with him, but I don't begrudge anyone who has a more emotional or practical attachment to this great old film.

Best regards,
SteveR

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar