I just listened to Sharky James Peta Pixel’s latest podcast. He made some comments on Kodak, Kodachrome, and other Kodak products. Just my humble opinion, but many people including Sharky say Kodachrome will not be coming back because the chemicals used for the old style film are too harsh for today’s standards. So. Update the product to today’s standards and make the film with the color rendition of the old film. I mean think about it, Ford has been making a Mustang since 1964 1/2. They don’t sell you the same vehicle they made in the old days. They sell you the Mustang experience and look in a more modern car. Kodak can do the same thing.
So just to recap – Kodak should make the new Kodachrome to have the color pallette of the old Kodachrome that people remember and like, but use a more modern chemical set that can pass today’s standards.
Ektachrome – Back in the day I shot lots of slide film. Actually I still shoot some slide film. But back in the day when I shot slide film I mostly shot Kodachrome. Why, it did not fade like Ektachrome. I also liked the color pallette of Kodachrome better. I hope when Ektachrome comes out again this fall that Kodak has a new formulation that does not fade like the old Ektachrome.
Back to Sharky James – From his comments what I get is that film photographers are a small niche and digital photography is what is important today. To me that is incorrect. Film photography is a significantly different process than digital and looks different. When you scan photographic film you scan the result of the chemical film and not the image itself. So you get the digital image of the chemical image capture. To my eye in many cases film gives a better image. They are two different art forms just like black and white photos are different from color. I would guess that both methods of image capture will be around for a while.
Photographic film uses pigmented particles to display color. Electronic display screens use electronic means to display color with density rated in pixels. The results are similar but not the same. Back 40 years ago the photographer in the family bought Kodachrome 64 and shot slides. When developed they were displayed by projecting the images on a screen. Kodachrome 64 was capable of very saturated colors with deep reds. It had very fine detail rendition. To get this result took decades of development. In my opinion, today for the best display of brilliant colors looking at slides on a light table or projecting them on a screen is still the best result.
The above picture was taken with a Motorola Droid Maxx phone camera. This picture was taken in January and basically this is what came out of the camera.
Even before I started buying digital cameras about 15 years ago I still considered it a chore to get out the slide projector and show the latest batch of them. Today nearly no one will do this. So is it worth it to shoot film when you are only going to see the results on a flat screen? Yes. When you capture that image with either negative film or slide film you always have the original film. You can have prints made from the film. You can rescan the film as that process improves. If you take a digital picture you only have the digital file.
This is our dog Frazier shot with an Olympus Stylus Infinity using Fuji Supurbia (cheap print film). I had it developed by The Darkroom and they sent me the results scanned and negatives. The original scan was about 4 megs and I slightly upped the color saturation using iPhoto
This sounds very complicated but simply put, if you have some red roses in your back yard you want a good picture of you may not be able to get the red you want if you do not have a camera and display screen capable of capturing and displaying the red tones you want. On the other hand a camera loaded with Fuji Velvia or Kodak Ektar 100 will give you the colors you want easily. And if your display cannot reproduce the colors you want today if you take film and get a better display later you will be able to see the picture you wanted to capture.
But for most people modern digital cameras take very good pictures easily.
The picture above was using a Nikon DSLR. It was taken at mid day and the reds on the Jeep are relatively true and vivid.
But nowhere near as nice as this reddish rose taken with my Olympus DSL and Velvia 50. Admittedly part of the appeal of the rose picture is the subtle bokeh.
As I said in post #1 on photography I have both types of cameras and intend to use both. If photography is fun for you I suggest the same.