Last Roll of Kodachrome Processed

Wired's Gadget Lab picked up a wistful story from the Wichita (Kansas) Eagle on the processing of the last roll of Kodachrome film that Kodak produced. "Freelance photojournalist Steve McCurry, whose work has graced the pages of National Geographic, laid 36 slides representing the last frames of Kodachrome film on the light board sitting on a counter in Dwayne's Photo Service in Parsons [Kansas]. ... National Geographic has closely documented the journey of the final roll of Kodachrome manufactured, down to its being processed. Dwayne's is the only photo lab left in the world to handle Kodachrome processing..." If you have any rolls of Kodachrome sitting around not yet exposed, better get them to Dwayne's before December 10, 2010.

Comments

Figures

[eln]

36 slides

It figures he would make them into slides. Now all he needs to do is invite his extended family over to his house on false pretenses and subject them to an interminably long slide show. Brings back horrible, horrible memories.

Re:Figures

[Entropius]

What else are you going to make slide film into?

Re:Figures

[mcgrew]

I was going to make a similar commet to yours; they need to mod you up. The GP was doubly wrong; not only was Kodachrome slide film, but I've had many slides printed as prints; no slide show or projector needed. Of course, the slides look better projected, but you could still get prints.

*sigh* I'm getting old, I had to change the tense of all the verbs in this comment, as there is no more Kodachrome.

Re:Figures

[HockeyPuck]

In forty years, those slides will still be sitting in a box and will be viewable. However, it's not like you can put a DVD/CD in your attic and let it sit there, forgotten, for 40years.

At last thanksgiving, my great-uncle brought over a hundred or so slides taken in the 50s. It's quite something to see your grand parents in the prime of their lives and your parents as little kids.

For the rest of us, we just need to hope that flickr/picasa is around in 40 years and someone knows the username/passwords.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Top Ten uses for Slide Film:

1. Goat detection at night

2. Repairing broken transistors

3. Finding out where the moon is

4. Telepathic, brain-damaged, gay crabs

5. Pidgeon shit

6. Linux servers

7. Designing a robot

Re:Figures

[MightyYar]

Two things:

1. If you had 100 interesting family photos in digital form, sharing would be trivial and space requirements would be almost nil. It's likely that you would have already seen the photos and kept any that interested you - and the rest of your family would do the same. Basically, the pictures would never go "in the attic" because they are almost free to store on every hard drive you ever own, moving from PC to PC as you get new ones.
2. If your uncle had an attic fire, bye-bye pictures. And you know what? It wouldn't matter because you wouldn't even be aware that the pictures ever existed. Your Thanksgiving wouldn't have been as memorable, and that is all that would have been lost.

Re:Figures

[Serious Callers Only]

In forty years, those slides will still be sitting in a box and will be viewable. However, it's not like you can put a DVD/CD in your attic and let it sit there, forgotten, for 40years.

I'll bet you can put pictures on the internet though, and be sure that they will last a lot longer than 40 years, *if* someone in the world finds them valuable. I reckon stuff on the internet will last longer than slides or DVDs, but it is too early to test that conjecture. Perhaps if you lock them into some companies website, they might disappear without your consent, but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

http://musiclub.web.cern.ch/MusiClub/bands/cernettes/firstband.html

Re:Figures

[Deadstick]

And with dead-tree books going away, he may not have anything to put under the front of the projector...

rj

Re:Figures

[sleeping143]

1. Goat detection at night

Actually, a negative film's higher exposure latitude would make it a much better choice for this.

Re:Figures

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The kicker with analog storage, though, is that while a lot of it has good retention time without special storage(unless you get one of the chemically problematic ones, like early wood fiber papers, or certain types of movie film...); but getting great retention time can be quite tricky or even impossible, and getting perfect retention simply isn't happening.

Digital, on the other hand, tends to degrade good and fast if neglected(HDD probably won't spin up in 10 years, unless you are fairly lucky. CD/DVD blanks may well have re-blanked in similar time, Flash typically has a rated retention time of only about that long, archival tape should still be OK, but you probably didn't use that...); but it is relatively easy to achieve perfect retention for as long as you can attend to it. Just copy to new media, and store multiple copies.

Re:Figures

[Anne_Nonymous]

Don't answer that!

Re:Figures

[theshowmecanuck]

You can cross process it as well. If you shoot Ektachrome (E-6) type color positive film at double the rated ISO and process it in a C41 process (normally only used for negative film), you get what is called a cross processed negative. It gives exaggerated color effects and sometimes added grain. Examples of E-6 film are Kodak Ektachrome, Fujifilm Velvia, Fujichrome Sensia, etc.

Personally when I used to do this, I also often asked the lab to develop the film at half the rated ISO. But it is good to experiment to see what you like. And then it is important to do your own print making when using cross processed film since you can tune the color shifts using the color enlarger's filters. You need find a good commercial lab that caters to pro photographers for good results, rather than places that cater to amateur/happy snap film processing. I have to admit that when I did cross processed photography it was mostly as an experiment/learning experience. Normally I stuck with black and white. And I haven't really done a lot lately.

This won't work with Kodachrome since the dyes are in the chemicals and not on the film. Cross processing just wipes the image completely off of the Kodachrome film, leaving you with nothing.

You can also cross process from print film to color positive (C41 film processed as E-6), but because color negative film has an added orange mask (since the red and green layers of the film are somewhat sensitive to blue light too), you can get a blueish tinge on the finished cross processed slide. Additionally, there are also methods to partially bleach film while being process which is also considered a form of cross processing.

Although I am not certain of the chemistry involved, quite a few big budget Hollywood movies use/used cross processing to gain a surreal effect. Normal movie film stock is actually a 'negative' film which must be printed. Examples include "Three Kings" with George Clooney, Blackhawk Down, etc.

So, *will* it be missed?

[Entropius]

I shoot digital only so don't really have any experience with film, but was there actually anything about Kodachrome that made it unique (in a good way) and will have anyone mourning its demise (other than Paul Simon), or are the newer films universally better?

I've thought about borrowing my dad's OM-1 just to shoot a few rolls of Velvia, but have never gotten around to it. (I have a few OM-mount lenses that I use on digital.)

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[Shinobi]

Durability/Longevity. All the quality photographic film can survive longer in storage than CD's/DVD's can. Even HD's have a higher deterioration rate.

But overall, with film, it still is the king when it comes down to absolute quality(Both in resolution and colour representation). A top-quality 35mm film with superb emulsion can reach pretty damn good resolutions(equalling todays top-of-the line DSLR's). Then you move up mid-format and large-format cameras and you get even more insane results.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[mcgrew]

RTFA -- Paul Simon was right. Colors especially come alive when you shoot on a rainy day, but are vivid and vibrant any time. Personally, I miss Kodachrome; digital photos don't have the spectrum (ar at least seem not to have the spectrum) of colors Kodachrome gave.

Unfortunately, you'll never get the chance to shoot with Kodachrome. Sometimes it's nice being a geezer; I wonder what my grandfather was able to experience that I'll never get the chance to?

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[CohibaVancouver]

but was there actually anything about Kodachrome that made it unique

I'm 43 and shot a lot of Kodachrome & Ektachrome in High School (1980 - 1985). WRT Kodachrome, it's exactly like Paul Simon says in his song - The colours were very rich and warm, particularly the blues, and the blacks were very, well, black. The developing process (called K-14) meant the film had almost no grain. The main limitations to the film was the very low ASA (ISO) rating. Even on a bright sunny day on the top of a snow capped mountain you were shooting Kodachrome 25 at F2.8 at 125th/second. Well, I exaggerate, but you get the idea...

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[GrumpySteen]

> I wonder what my grandfather was able to experience that I'll never get the chance to?

Polio epidemics.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[MightyYar]

Sometimes it's nice being a geezer; I wonder what my grandfather was able to experience that I'll never get the chance to?

Tuberculosis.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[Brett Buck]

It was incredibly stable, the colors were very well-saturated but otherwise pretty accurate. The last version (kodachrome 64) was a little too contrasty for my tastes - I liked Kodachrome 25. You can't compare it to any digital until your pixels get smaller than a silver molecule, at least not any "35 mm" digital camera. Used to us it in 120 and just looking at them on a light table made you feel like a hero. "Kodachrome Red" was pretty famous, red always looked great. And it was perfectly well-suited for skin tones.

        The film that effectively put it out of business, Fuji Velvia, is spectacular for landscapes where it pumps up the color saturation, and has all the colors like Kodachrome did red. It's very warm as far as color balance goes, and skin tones are almost cartoonishly shifted. It's essentially useless for portraits because of that. But it's far easier to process and you can still get it processed locally. Dwayne's Photo has been the only place processing it for years, and if you took it to a shop, that;s were it eventually ended up. Typically in recent years the turnaround time is on the order of two weeks. E6, you can still get overnight.

          As far as I have seen, there's no real general-purpose replacement for Kodachrome. OR, rather, its digital - where the lack of image quality is offset by far superior color accuracy (much better on a general basis than ANY film) and easily manipulated and printed images.

        But the handwriting is on the wall for just about all 35mm. It's always been marginally acceptable for sports and photojournalism because it was cheap and the little cameras were reasonably portable. The lack of overall image quality compared to 120 or larger (other than in the hands of masters) didn't really matter for magazines or newspapers. But everything 35mm could do is more-or-less easier or better with digital aside from the image quality, and the image quality of digital (since the mid 00's) has been sufficient to the point that it didn't matter.

          When I go on photo trips, I now carry 4 cameras - a Canon point-and-shoot for quickies, a Nikon digital SLR for anything that moves, and two Yashica-Mats, one with Velvia 100 and one with Tri-X, for things that don't move. I will typically take the same shot with the Velvia 100 and the Nikon just in case, and meter the Yashica-mat shots with the Nikon (to back up spot meter readings).

      BTW, if you get out the OM-1, be sure and check the foam light seals on the back. I have a 1977 version and the foam is decaying severely. and bear in mind that you can't get the batteries for the meter any more - they make some replacements but most of them don't put out the right voltage.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Digital cameras still don't have the gamut of film - at least not consumer level cameras. And very few digital displays can even come close to displaying the full gamut of which film is capable.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[bitslinger_42]

Having been taking pictures pseudo-seriously (i.e. not a pro, but not just doing birthday pictures of my kid) for a couple decades, I can say that there are pluses and minuses to each.

Kodachrome was a really high-quality film. It had great grain characteristics, wonderful color reproduction, and extremely good shelf-life. It's been very popular with the NatGeo set because it worked so well for capturing things like sunsets on the Serengeti. On the down-side, it was only made in relatively low speeds, ISO 200 or slower, so it wasn't well suited for photojournalism, sports, kids playing in the back yard, etc. It also used a different chemical process from other films (C-41 for print, E-6 for most other slide films, K-14 for Kodachrome), and the chemical process was quite a bit more complicated than even other slide films.

Velvia is a nice film, as well, but it has a tendency towards super-saturated colors, so it has a different feel from Kodachrome.

Digital has come a long way over the years, but it still lacks the dynamic range, resolution, and color reproduction capabilities of film, particularly the specialty films like Kodachrome or Tech Pan. Despite that, it's much cheaper to shoot, easier to handle, easier to process, easier to print, and lends itself much more readily to the Web than film does, which is why I haven't shot a single roll of film in ten or twelve years.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[GoatEnigma]

Don't fret, your kids will be able to experience old diseases thanks to the contributions of Jenny McCarthy and her world order of fruitcakes.

Re:So, *will* it be missed?

[epp_b]

Using Ken Rockwell as a reference for photography is like using Fox as a reference for news.

Rolls of Kodachrome

[ceswiedler]

If you have any rolls of Kodachrome sitting around not yet exposed, better expose them before sending them to Dwayne's before December 10, 2010.

Re:Still labs around for color (and even real b/w)

[CohibaVancouver]

I'm guessing there will be for a little while to come

E-6 "Ektachrome" processing? Sure. K-14 "Kodachrome" processing? Very unlikely.

Re:Momma don't take my Kodachrome Away!!

[LaminatorX]

Small batch Kodachrome processing is simply not possible. It's a 25 step process, generally overseen by an actual chemical engineer. The smallest it ever got was when they'd have lab set up in the back of a semi-trailer to do on-site processing at the World Series, Kentucky Derby, and similar events.

OTOH, the E-6 process used to develop Ektachrome/Fujichrome slide film can be carried out in a small home lab, and commercial processing is still widely available.

Re:Momma don't take my Kodachrome Away!!

[Lumpy]

Until medium format Digital becomes more sane and really up's the resolution... film ain't going nowhere.

Even low end DSLR's like the T2i now have better resolution than 35mm film. (yes they do, I shoot both and that camera even kicks the hell out of 50ISO slide film for resolution.) As I have seen myself by scanning negatives and slides taken by really expensive cameras and glass.. Current cheap digitals exceed 35mm film.

but medium format is another matter.. 70mm is astounding still and I have yet to see any medium format digital get anywhere near what a cheap 1960's used camera can deliver. I have an old 220 that is 10 years older than I am and it produces insane photographs.

I look forward to the day when I can get a decent medium format digital...

Dwayne's must be getting a lot of strange calls

[JavaRob]

I live in a small rural village in central France. Two weeks ago the owner of a small photo shop in a nearby town asked me for help -- he had a customer who had dropped off film to be developed, and no place in France developed Kodachrome anymore... so he needed me to help him call Dwayne's Photo in KS, and give them his credit card details in English (thanks for your help, Krystal). It definitely struck me as odd at the time that the one place in the world he'd found to develop this film sounded like a tiny operation, but obviously his research was good....

There's a whole world out there, with Kodachrome film scattered throughout -- not everyone has an American living nearby who can help them make the call. I wonder what kinds of other calls they're fielding now.

Re:Momma don't take my Kodachrome Away!!

[Firethorn]

You can still buy (better) slide film.

I'd have to agree; Long before digital Kodachrome had become something of a niche market.

Many of those who used it did so for the same reasons some people prefer tube amps over digital ones.

Sure, it's a distortion; but it's a pleasing distortion.

Still, I'm sure somebody will come out with a 'kodachrome' filter that can render your images to look more like kodachrome in post-process.

Re:wow just dumb....

[Brett Buck]

Not even close to correct. The equipment is essentially unique and not at all like any other processing system. That was always one of the issues - there was never going to be anything like "1-hour processing" for Kodachrome, the process is two orders of magnitude more difficult and fussy than anything else.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slides made crappy prints

[wsanders]

The problem with slides is that the dynamic range, especially of Kodachrome, surpassed that of prints, so the prints were crappy looking. You had two choices:

1) Make a contrast-reducing mask, used along with an internegative, for a "type-C" print, the same kind of print made from negative stock. Of course the intermediate processes reduced the fidelity of the resulting print, but if you went to a good lab the results were pretty good and very pricey.

2) Use Cibachrome or some positive process print. Ciba prints always looks murky and strange to me (I can immediately spot them in a gallery). Other positive process prints had unstable dyes, at least until the 80s or so. I can still tell my positive process, direct-from-slide prints from my Type C ones.

A third alternative was to scan them in. This was easy when you worked for National Geographic :-) For us mere mortals, decent sub-$5K slide scanners didn't really exist until about five years ago.

Still, I shot nothing but slides (when I shot color and not BW), and used nothing but Kodachome if I could. All my Kodachrome slides, dating back to the 70s, look as good now as the day they came back from the lab.