Comments 100

  • Hello, I recently bought the Canon EF or the "Black Beauty". My lens is the Super-Canomatic FD 50mm 1.8 lens. It has 2 aperture rings and I'm confused on what ring should I use? Or should I use it both in the same aperture?

  • I never understood why there wasn't "Kodachrome 100" to head off Fuji and Sakura when they came to the U.S. market. As for using slide film when the light level went down, I reached for High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160) and wondered why Kodak let GAF's Anscochrome 200 and 500 "eat their lunch." Oh well, Kodak did wake up, finally with Kodacolor II (ISO 100) and Kodacolor 400, though by then, my new work schedule stopped my one regularly scheduled reason to use Kodachrome 25 or 64. When "the lights were turned on again," I opted for a Fuji E500 digital camera and a Nikon D40 instead of going back film, which was getting hard to find at the local drugstore. Go back to analog Photography? Well, I still have my Nikon FM2 and F2, so nothing is impossible.;)

  • This may sound like a waste of effort. I am (experimenting)shooting images digitally with Nikon D810 for high resolution and re-shooting the digital photos displayed on LG 4K OLED screen, with Nikon F5 with B/W film. Somehow I can not get the right exposure and contrast, and sometimes, moire will show up . Is there a better way to transfer digital photo images to B/W film? the digital camera is wonderful to quickly edit and sort out the shots, and the analog camera is good for the keepers. Thanks for your suggestions, I love your the photo lessons. They really inspire me.

  • I have a minolta maxxum 400si 35mm camera and a canon rebel t5 dslr and and a Beseler
    Cadet II enlarger am looking at getting a canon rebel t6i for video but i love the 35mm more than the canon even thought i have to work less to see the results there is just something about 35 mm that i cant get rid of

  • Interesting idea about wanting the K-14 processing to make a come back. I worked for Kodak in CA for 18 years, half that time in the chemical processing division. The environmental issues in itself could be enough to keep it from coming back; Kodak used ferricyanide bleach; dangerous to regenerate and expensive to dispose of. An alternative is to use a conditioner step with aerated EDTA bleach but are the results the same and what would be the cost benefits? Unless safer chemicals can be substituted that remain environmentally friendly, while still producing great finished results …. it could be a very rough road.

  • Film is far from dead. In the movie industry alone, some recent blockbusters were shot on 35mm or 65mm (Kodak) film. Not on an digital Red or something – it was film. I think that says something.

  • I use digital to shoot all day until i find a great photograph, then I take some experimental test shots before finally pulling out my early 1980's all mechanical Pentax to get the perfect shot on Natura or Portra film. It may not be better, but it has a look which can't be replicated.

  • …and it's nice buying a 300mm zoom lens for $20 all day for the film cameras.

  • Just hope someone (Ilford) brings back Cibachrome sometime……!

  • I shoot digital and film for portrait photography projects. But I must say that shooting portraits with a Nikon F6 SLR, Nikon 105 f/2 DC lens and Fuji Pro 400H film is an experience unlike any other and the reason I'm so passionate about photography.

  • I'm going to be "lending" (I mean probably giving) my niece an Olympus Trip when I've put a few more rolls through it myself. If she enjoys the process of film, I may give her my Spotmatic II also (along with a couple of "non radioactive" Takumars) and see what happens from there. To me, film and digital are two different mediums. In the same way I wouldn't have used Acrylics for something I would rather do in Oils. Since 3 years ago, there isn't one art supply shop or film lab in the CITY I live in now. That is crazy to me. I ask myself why that is and the answer is depressing and probably cynical to some. Disposable Culture that learns to run before it can walk. I don't get why some think the idea of flushing such a gorgeous medium like film down the toilet seems the right way to go. It's the attitude "Well, we don't need oil paints or inks anymore, we have Photoshop and our tablet/stylus combo". That's the way its come across to me in the last decade or so at least.

    One thing I will never do (he says) is take an image from a fantastic digital camera and then use a preset in Lightroom or Photoshop to make it look 'a bit like film'. I don't get it, I mean I play around with those presets on Instagram to share privately with friends, but I'd have to flagellate myself to try and hood wink someone into believing that the image was cross processed, selenium tinted or skip bleached etc. Digital has it's own aesthetic, not a lot of people really explore it. You want your shots to look like film? Shoot film.

    I'm interested in what digital can do that film can't and vice versa.

    I'll end this rant with a groan about a show where someone had used what we called 'sloppy borders' along with the sprocket holes that identified itself as TX… the pictures were in colour. If it wasn't for the sentiment that when asked about the neg carrier the photographer implied that film was dead because you can do it in Photoshop I might have let it pass.

  • if not a high end camera (f7) what about a mid range (fm2) from someone like cosina?

  • We shoot film because the way it looks and because shooting film force you to visualise the picture before and after taking the picture and that is a powerful tool ,
    Your brain!!

  • I just purchased a camera bag full of goodies.  Inside was a mint  Ricoh KR10 Super and two Ricoh lenses.  As I was looking at the camera body I noticed it still had film inside with a few shot left over.  I shot of the last few shots, rewind the camera and out falls a 24 roll of Kodachrome 64  K-14 slide film.  I wish I knew where it could be developed as would love to know where this cameras been.  Possible Rome, Paris, London or maybe even Tokyo.  The camera itself is from the early 80s and I bought it from an estate sale.

  • soullessness is in the eye of the beholder. Shoot both. Just shoot.

  • Man. . .I just scanned-in a matchbox-size book of Kodachrome slides taken of family members–likely around Parsons, Kansas–over 60-years ago.
    After all that time, the colors are still rich, all the details are still there, and no special digital editing had to be performed afterward.
    While I am starting to sway-away from the cumbersome process of film (but probably won't), want Kodachrome back SO bad!

  • I think that the fact that the categories "warm" or "cold" are (still) so widely applied in a number of very different contexts (like music for vinyl/CD or lamp amps/numeric amps, or in the cinema industry with real/CGI effets, or photography,…) to mark a difference felt either in the medium or in the product might be a proof that there is some kind of consistency in the concept… Even if there's no need to hate on the digital era and its usefulness, the fact that a lot of people are returning to or discovering film photography and such analog ways nowadays might give us some insights on how the ever-over-digital society frustrates some of our needs and in this case the need to get a hand on things, to acquire autonomy and control over things, to manually create,… It's my opinion but I think in film photography the black room is a big part of the process. Anyway if someone is interested in the subjet I strongly recommand reading Matthew Crawford.

  • My most beautiful shots were taken on Kodachrome. Awesome colours.

  • Contax needs to remake contax t2 and t3. or any high end point and shoot film camera. The used market is astronomical, and there is demand for that.

  • Cat in the background at 1:56

  • Different flavors, both valid.

    But in almost every art form it is clear that as we strive for perfection (mostly through digital and technology), a large segment of people realize that actually technical perfection could be actually less desirable.

    In music this is proven time and time again, very high level recording uses tube and analog equipments that introduces distortion, 30+ year old synths guitar and drums are the most desirable instruments, and play back on vinyl and tubes again can be perceived to be more pleasing.

  • I could see it coming back but at the hands of Fuji rather than Kodak.

  • I never stopped shooting film:
    There is really no need for a new high-end film camera.
    There are so many existing to be had.
    I shoot with a 40 year old Pentax that takes great pictures.
    There will always be a niche, and both pronunciations are acceptable.
    Glad to see the new release of Ektachorme. Seems like a move in the right direction.

  • There were just a couple of discrepancies in this video so thought I'd address them and add some positive info, too:

    1. Kodak still makes the film in Rochester, whilst Kodak Alaris distributes the still camera film and belongs to the Kodak UK Pension Fund.
    2. Nikon still manufactures and sells the F6 – a brand new, top-of-the-line analogue camera with matrix metering and all the modern gubbins. It was first released several years ago, but then there is no sensor to upgrade, so there is no need for a new design every two years. It is widely available from Nikon dealers.
    3. Leica still manufactures film rangefinders.
    4. Zenit in Russia still manufactures film SLRs.
    6. Japan Camera Hunter is working on a new compact film camera.

    Fujifilm clearly wants out of the pro film market, but Kodak is bringing films back, and Ilford continues to offer multiple lines of film in all formats. Film Ferrania in Italy seems to be on its feet now, of course there is ADOX in Germany and Foma in the Czech Republic and, not least, Bergger in France. That's just confirmed manufactures. There are then the Rollei and AGFA brands, which may or may not manufacture their own film. Add to this the multiple companies making chemicals and paper, plus the amazing wealth of top-quality used gear out there and there's every reason to be positive about analogue photography.

    Might as well add this – Kodak has opened a cinelab in New York City which has been so successful they are now bringing in more machinery and looking to hire more staff (they have probably done so at the time of writing this).

    Things are looking pretty positive.

  • You know, the whole "versus" thing isn't just tied to film and digital photography, because you can find it EVERYWHERE. What it is is competitive mindset in humans, which has always been around, but it has especially become worse in this age of commercialism and just general whining about STUFF. – It used to be about having more wives or more children or a bigger stick or whatever. Now it's about having more megapixels or a faster car or a more exotic guitar or whatever. – And everything creative, like photography, artwork, music, all that, is being treated like it's a competitive sport as well. It's human stupidity and ignorance, really. People stopped applying logic and don't stop to think "why" anymore. It's all about "more" and "better", not the fact that you can create or do something nice. Just like the type to whom it's more about the gear than about what you can do with the gear. Again, in everything like photography, to music, and so on. – That's why people do the "versus" thing, and it works in terms of making content as well. Just put "versus" in a YouTube-title or internet-headline and it will trigger something in the ignorant brain and the vast majority WILL want to see what the deal is.

  • "A fad like Vinyl". It's now, however…

  • Here's the problem with using tube-microphones as an example, though; It's less like a platform and more for colorization. Using a particular microphone is almost like using a particular type of film. It isn't a matter of "tube microphones vs non-tube microphones", because analogue is pretty much analogue when it comes to that, it's just that a tube inside colors it differently. – That's a whole other can of worms and this is not the right channel for that, but just saying that it's not a fair comparison. – Almost like comparing an old-fashioned lightbulb to an LED-light or something, it's still physical light. You can't digitize a microphone at the point where it captures sound, you still need microphone-technology to capture the sound. There hasn't really been a replacement like there's the digital optical sensor after film.

  • So, if a company is smart, they'd just have new and more efficient machines that produce film made for them and profit from that… Heck, even smarter would be to work together with another company that makes machines and they would benefit from making film-machines…

    Besides, there are small companies that hand-make film or whatever. I don't know what kind of black magic that is, but they do, and apparently they make a profit or they wouldn't have been doing it for years.

    There are companies that do the same with Vinyl. I'm pretty sure that they've made entirely modern plants to produce Vinyl records again. It's all a matter of marketing, and I don't think film will make it UNLESS they start introducing it into the mainstream just like they market Vinyl records next to CDs and T-shirts and posters for artists in music. – So… They need to find a way to make film a "gimmick" again so the general consumer will blow money on it. That might sound harsh, but that's how it works. – Because a lot of money comes from pop-culture, things that are popular in the mainstream, not from niche markets.

  • its just simple, because digital picture is virtual, and film is physical image, so by the side of museology, film is lasting material, and digital is not. so digital is fast, but film is lasting and keeps thing for years, and we are not so sure that after 100 years this digital virtual images will survive and will be readable again. film will for sure…

  • I am hooked on Films now though I have several Digital Cameras Fuji 100t, Xpro 2, Panasonic G5, G8 with different Lense but I am using mostly Leica M3, M6 & good old few Leica III s.

  • Yes, I will like to Analog Film Photography please.

  • For some reason, this video looks like somebody took it on slide film and xpro'd it. 😀

  • Nothing like the look of film! I shoot both, both have its place. Film is just my first love. Both are more than capable mediums to create beautiful images with. There is no VS discussion as far as I'm concerned. Both have its merit.

  • First thing to remember is emulsion Film Photography is " Not Analog " it is a CHEMICAL process… Nothing to do with the use of an electrical process to record it.! The sound track on a Movie Camera may have a analog sound track "but" film or negative is Not Analog,, no more than house paint or colors of a rainbow; could be called Analog…..

  • So your comments on Kodachrome being grainy got me to thinking and wondering. So I broke out my original Kodachrome (landscape) slides from the 70's. Not seeing the grain that you are talking about. Not seeing the red cast either. Have these incredible rich dark blues that I would have always expected from Kodachrome. The other thing with the slow film speed. No one ever expected to have shot Kodachrome without a tri-pod. Even today if you are shooting a film speed that slow and you aren't using a tripod something is wrong. Maybe it was a different time where photographers learned about photography and not "taking pictures". Could be wrong though.

  • In the very least, Nikon recently announced that they would be offering repairs for their film cameras for a limited time. Either way, that's a pretty big acknowledgement from one of the biggest players in digital.I'd love to hear your thoughts on this

  • If I were starting again, I'd get an ok Nikon digital SLR and one great lens to learn on, like a Zeiss Milvus. Once I became happy with my compositions, I'd jump to a medium format for landscape or an F6 so I could use the same lens.

  • Thank you, Ted. This was informative and useful.

  • Catching up on some AoPs, one year late for this eps, but this is a really good one, very good points raised and discussed.

  • Digital data is to easily lost. If you want to keep the image, use film.

  • Thanks for the "Fad" push back.

  • New processing videos!

  • I'm a retired photojournalist who got his first camera in 1968 (a Nikon F). Obviously had to turn to digital as the business changed, but have never lost touch with film. Now that I shoot mostly for myself, it's almost all film. I've sold lots of gear in my life but never got rid of my original F2 kit. Now I'm back shooting with my Nikon F2AS bodies and loving every minute of it. Would love to see Kodachrome make a comeback, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • It's hard to believe that in this age of information, storage, and instant access, making film photography would become extinct . We should be gaining skills, knowledge, not loosing it.

  • Kodak b&w c-41 process – would love to see before I buy some film,,,thanks Dave

  • I remember 25 ISO for Kodachrome. I love the slides. I used it in the US. I prefer Kodachrome over Ektachrome. Tried and Agfa too.

  • Digital = Picture taker. Film = Photographer. NEVER confuse the two. One requires talent. The other can be done by a monkey. If you shoot with a digital camera you are NOT a photographer. You are a monkey with a computerized picture taking machine.

  • Always interested in your take on film and processing. Keep it coming!

  • I ran a photography business for 27 years. That whole time I processed my own film and prints, both black and white and color. I especially loved doing large prints from transparency film. I would tube process 16×20's. It was so exciting to open the tube at the end and remove the print. In all that time I shot commercially and did the art end of photography for myself. I would take my 4×5 out in the field to do nature stuff. And 35mm was always my favorite. In the end I had all those years of making a living and experiencing the joy of photography. I shoot digital now and have started the learning process all over. Photography will always be amazing and fascinating to me. ThanksTed, for a great YouTube channel.

  • Ted, while I agreed with much of what you said, I feel that you are giving far too much credit and praise to Fuji.  Yes, they may have had the most sold product on amazon or whatever, they have clearly shown no dedication to staying in the film game with their killing off of products such as Neopan 400/1600, FP3000B/FP100C, etc. They currently only offer Pro 400H and Across 100 for colour or B&W neg films.  I have loved fuji films in the past, but honestly I can not put any faith in whether or not they will be offering any film in 1 yr let alone 2 or 5 or 10 years.

  • Just got me a Nikon f4 and my first roll of film. Any suggestions?

  • Re: Kodak, who makes the chemicals?  For my own darkroom color work, it's not possible to buy Kodak chemistry anymore, because they sell it in a format only for laboratories.  If you want to use the full 6-bath E6 process, there's Fuji-Hunt and no one else, so I'll shoot Fujichrome regardless of what Kodak does to bring back Ektachrome.  Similarly, Kodak chemistry for C41 and RA4 is no longer available in amounts practical for home processing, so, best to buy the film from the same people who supply the means to develop it – support the infrastructure.

  • Before Fuji Velvia (ISO 50) there was Kodachrome. Or as my father said, before the naturalistic colors Kodak could produce was trounced on by the Japanese as boring in their attempt to annihilate Kodak Reversal Film sales. And yes Kodak fell flat on their face in their no response to the high-contrast super saturated primary colors Fuji Film invasion. Too bad. I found Fuji Provia more useful than Velvia a few years on and never stopped shooting Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200. In the same way an oil painter chooses their pigments photographers of color chose their film. I'd like to go on record in support of reviving K-14 process not only because I think it has a classic look but because I still have dozens of rolls of the stuff! Proper film care assumed, I have never had a film (color or b&w) expiration date have anything more than a 1/3 to 1/2 stop loss in exposure (& that was usually Tri-X) when exposed years past it's expiration date. Shoot, I'd pay $50 a roll to get processed. There has to be enough $$ in that to get restarted?!??!!?!

  • Do the age of an analog camera madder anything? I got a 30-40 year old camera, I got it from my grandfather. It's a Minolta SRT101.

  • I have some Kodachrome slides from the 1950s
    10 asa if I recall.
    Still bright and sharp.
    Shot on a Leica screw mount camera

  • Kodak would have to set up their own processing labs as Kodachrome is a reduction process which is different to Ektachrome

  • Can't see it happening I am afraid.

  • I would rather see them bring back Bromesko Chlorobromide black and white paper.

  • Last Kodachrome I shot was 200 iso.

  • Yes, more videos on film processing!

  • I use film and digital – digital for birding and wildlife because you end up wasting a lot of your shots. I love film for the look and I use it for more artistic shots. It forces me to think more about composition and to really learn the camera’s controls which in turn makes my digital photography better. They complement each other and are both valuable in different ways

  • I love film even though I shoot digital however film is great it has fun in the process of actually taking a picture.It has a ritual of getting the packet back and opening it and seeing your work in hard copy.

  • In terms of film vs digital, something should be said for photo quality. A medium format negative scanned at full resolution can produce a 95 megapixel equivalent image. That blows the large majority of the consumer DSLRs on the market out of the water. For some landscape photographers, medium format cameras is the only way to go. I shoot both. I appreciate both. Both have pros and cons. Digital is faster but film is about the craft and for some work, the picture quality. For any serious landscape photography I plan on doing, I reach for my Pentax 6×7

  • Good photo’s come from an epiphany in a special moment, place or event in time that was ment to be captured to later inspire what makes life special. With all the robotics and the advances in automation why did Kodac bail on 600 rolls a day to keep their name alive. RIP Kodac

  • When your talking about making new film, keep in mind that afordable photography is what made Kodac. Not everyone has a months pay to buy a mid range digital camera. F Face book

  • The difference is not in the end, it's in the journey. Both have advantages and disadvantages in producing a quality product,  but silver based photography involves inherent magic (including demands and emotions) digital users will, unfortunately, never know.

  • Use both problem solved!

  • A few years ago I began to scan old Kodachromes & Ektachromes that my father took in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Much to my surprise a carefully scanned and edited slide can look every bit as beautiful as a digital photo. As a result, I resurrected my old 6X6 cameras from the 1970s and rediscovered film. I have to say, that as a result of scanning these old slides I prefer the analog hands down to digital. 20 years from now will your family still have the digital images? The film images will be around 20 years from now and longer.

  • Well, it's been about a year and a half since you produced this video, but I feel the need to comment. You discussed Kodachrome in some detail, and I think you're correct that it is doubtful that it will ever come back, which to me is a pity. The reason is because of Kodachrome's outstanding quality as an archival medium. To this day there is still no substitute for Kodachrome as an archival medium. I don't trust digital in the long term because of the change of formats that are likely to occur over to coming decades — and centuries — and I think the only way digital can survive this march of technology will be for the old stocks to be converted to the new formats. Sooner or later, this process will break down somewhere and the oldest digital images will quietly disappear. But good old Kodachrome will still be around. So, what I'd like to see from the surviving film producers is some effort to produce a film product that will have the same archival quality as Kodachrome has. Maybe it will be a new process? Maybe it can still be E-6 — or even C-41 — but the dyes in the film are more stable? I dunno, but I sure would like to see a replacement to Kodachrome. Not having an archival quality color film really bothers me.

  • Kodachrome on a big screen …so good !

  • What a great video. You are very knowledgeable and like myself enjoy both film and digital. But my love of film gives me my hobby within a hobby. That being audio visual slide presentations. Using my 2 Leica projectors. Fostex X34 4 track cassette recorder for the music and pulse. And Imatronic dissolve unit to produce that pulse to change the the speed of the fade between the 2 projectors. It's a great way to show your slide sequences set with music . Have you ever done this ?

  • To note in the UK Kodachrome came in 2 speeds 25 ASA and 64 ASA. The 25 ASA was as smooth as silk showing hardly any grain even blown up to 5feet on a projector screen. Those were the days………ahhhhh

  • Both formats have pros & cons – film is special really getting great results with film – Leica really produces amazing results

  • i feel like for work and day to day use digital in some form or most forms is the way to go. film is fun once and awhile when you have the time

  • One year later no sign of Ektachrome

  • If you ever come to England, see if you can visit the Ilford factory in Mobberley, Cheshire
    I worked there and enjoyed my time there. You could get to see all the processes involved in making film and paper
    Sure your followers would love to see it

  • I shoot both film and digital

  • fast forward a year now and we get the good news that Ektachrome is back! I'm waiting for a couple of rolls that I've pre ordered from my local film supplier here down under to arrive once they get it in stock. really looking forward to getting out and shooting with it, hope it will be as nice to use as Fuji Velvia 50 & 100 is.

  • I had the amazing experience of going on a tour of Kodak in Rochester NY when I was a chemical engineering student at Syracuse in 1998, I believe it was building F 117 (F17?) Where they actually prepared and applied the emulsions to the acetate film, there were THOUSANDS of feet of stainless piping and valves and controls and it was all inside a refrigerated and very dark building. , the machinery was unbelievable and all of it was precision. The tour guide told us that just the "hearts" (rotary die punches)that they used to cut the sprocket holes cost about 30k each. Interestingly enough the best workers they had were blind people. The point is that it would be astronomically expensive to restart a film manufacturing program and its all gone now. So for dear god buy film from the few remaining manufacturers because once they close they are gone forever

  • The term cold poorly describes digital. Digital cameras have and artificial quality. They ar Film actually captures the light that reflected off an object. When film is used at optimum conditions it is far superior. Digital sensors and focus assistance and shutter speed assistance can be helpful. Hybrid cameras would be optimum.

  • Well Kodachrome did come back 😉

  • 2 THUMBS UP @Ted Forbes! Can not wait to see the darkroom stuff, keep it coming!

  • Vinyl isn't a fad. Pretty much the same as people shooting film. People like having a physical thing to hold.

  • A slide or transparency is a color reversal film much akin to the cinematograph film that after its chemical treatment of processing retains a positive image, though transparent and needs to be projected on a white surface for normal viewing or viewed in its actual 35MM frame by backlit illumination on a slide viewer, whereas a negative film which like the transparency captures a reverse image on its focal plane surface, gets to be reflected again from an enlarger to release its reverse etched image after chemical processing (to reach its negative stage) on photographic paper that retains that image (this time re-reversed) that after a chemical bath and fixing and hardening and drying gives you printed images for viewing very much like the negative black and white film and its print.

    But those days of negatives and chromatic reversal films are histories today. Nobody at least in India sells and/or processes them for prints and slides. My Leica and Hasselblad and Zeiss and Contax film cameras that had cost me fortunes to buy and collect were sold off as junk fetching me thousands against the millions spent on them. It has taken 30-40 years for the industry to come up 25-35MP sensors to match the equivalence of the 35MM focal plane area and do away with the mirror and pentaprism so that the weight (reduced by 3/4th with the discarding of brass and alloy on bodies and barrels and optical glass elements on lenses) and size get handheld ease.

    So why this video on films?

  • Digital vs film , oil painting vs graffiti , I love all !
    Actually tomorrow I will shoot film , street photography I will use a grainy one !

  • Digital is cheaper and more convenient. It also allows the tech-savvy to manipulate the images till their hearts content. Is digital better? No. What saddens me is the way camera manufacturers force customers to constantly upgrade their equipment to ever more megapixels (which cannot be seen by the naked eye and can't be resolved by most lenses anyway) on increasingly poorly built cameras – why build something to last when it will be obsolete in a year or two. I hope film has a renaissance like vinyl!

  • LOL, If they bring Kodachrome back then that National Geographic documentary about the last role of KodaChrome would be fun to rewatch and laugh at.

  • Please don't take my KodaChrome away….

  • The machinery to make the film and the machinery to take pictures is old and breaking day by day. No one to my knowledge is making either with the exception of cheap cameras. It just about broke my heard to hear that my Pentacon 6 parts needed to repair my P6 are now unavailable unless I want to canabalize another P6. Unless new quality cameras are made film will have a limited lifespan of not more than another 50 1o 100 years. I have Ektachrome and Kodachrome slides that date back to the 1950s. Some of those from the mid 1950s have started to fade but slides from the mid 1960s forward still look great. photos that were taken in the 1960s, excluding a fire or weather, they will be around for a long time. My belief is that for the majority of people, digital photos will be lost within a generation or two. That is the problem as I see it with digital. To those too young to have shot Kodachrome my thoughts are that Kodachrome was the better transparency film up to the mid 1990s when Ektachrome an Fuji transparency films surpassed it. Fuji Velvia and Provia, in my opinion are better films than Kodachrome ever was. I clicked on this Youtube link because I read a Kodak advertisement on a Russian instagram hashtag that Kodak brought Kodachrome out in 2018?

  • I know this is a 2 year old video now, but Kodak/Kodak Alaris are looking into bringing back the Kodachrome sensitivity curve but using E-6 processing. Quite aside from other issues, K-14 needs specialized equipment and has severe EPA problems with the chemistry being toxic. So this would be a sort of Kodachrome III for E-6 – could be a very interesting outcome if they can pull it off.

    Apparently your chemists comment is the hardest part, but they have some guys over at Eastman Chemical helping them.

  • Just a little slip up there. You said Dwayne's Photo was in Kansas City, but it's actually in Parsons.

  • Agree with everything you say – all topics covered in your answers were on point. Yes film and digital are two totally different technologies of course, and they can live happily side by side.
    As for a brief look at what happened with the digital revolution – we have to realize just what an unenviable position Kodak (the best example as they were affected the most) found itself in. Here was a behemoth of a company that for nearly 100 years was the world leader in film technology, in so many varied and diverse areas – producing millions of feet of film of all types weekly to feed professional and amateur motion pictures and still film, chemicals, papers, untold types of other hardware and photo chemical technology for medical, industrial, commercial and consumer applications. Here was this gigantic production going on around the world that suddenly came to a grinding halt. In the case of motion picture film – virtually overnight when cinemas around the world and movie studios decided to stop using film for the majority of their output. Their model suddenly was obsolete. The huge factories could no longer be supported. Scrambling to reinvent themselves was the only option. They probably should have bit the bullet and simply downsized to a manageable contained entity that met the market and concentrated their efforts in the area they knew best. But everyone was crying 'the death of film'. As it turns out, fortunately, that is not quite the case – there is still a place for film.

  • Film and Mac

  • If they brought back Kodachrome, that’s all I would shoot. Nothing compares to that look in my humble opinion. Regarding film vs digital. To me it’s the craftsmanship that comes with film that I admire, the longevity and lineage from our for bearers, digital seems like something from a disposable age.

  • Film isn't analogue .

  • Did you know the data collector in your electronic camera – commonly called a digital camera – is analog? True. So my question is what analog type of light collector are you referring to?

  • love carbons

  • I use slide projectors and enlargers.

  • do you know of any places that will develop double 8mm, i have a roll of fomapan r100?

  • I transformed my kitchen to a complete darkroom with 2 enlargers greylab timer trays chemicals bulk film holders
    etc etc….My refrigerator was outside the kitchen with a crackpot on top….I was kind of eccentric
    Miss that life

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *