Photographers: Your take on this week's demise of Kodachrome: Trivial business decision

[Mike 03]

or do you think 35mm is being phased out?

The only news blips I heard about this made it into a joke, playing Paul Simon's song, and I couldn't even tell for sure whether they meant a particular brand of Kodak product or just all the 35mm still photography film. Some of the articles online cleared that up, but...

I'm stuck in my old ways: I love 35mm film, fiddling with color and polarized filters, shutter speeds, even filling out the envelops and waiting impatiently for the prints to be developed.

But I could see where maybe that is old school. Maybe Kodak and Fuji can no longer make money at this. And what about developing the film? Is it profitable for developers?

Since I have only shot 35mm I'm in no position to really judge on this issue. But I think I would really miss 35mm.

I used to love shooting black and white--do any of the film companies still produce black and white film?

Photographers, give it to me straight: Do you think Fuji and Kodak 35mm films are going to be a thing of the past? Will it all be digital from now on?

Does anybody here shoot black and white photos anymore?

[joeybee12]

1. I heard there is only one lab IN THE WORLD that has the equipment to process

Kodachrome...it's in Kansas for some reason.

[Warpy]

2. It was a business decision

I know a lot of photographers who process film at home who are now going to have to rely on Fuji or BSF or someone else for their film.

While Photoshop is fun and doesn't leave my hands reeking of chemicals (even with gloves), I still miss the feeling of hands on artistry that only processing film and pictures in a darkroom seems to confer.

I have to admit, though, that the Photoshopped stuff is superior.

[ContinentalOp]

7. You can't develop Kodachrome at home anyway.

And they're not ceasing production of Ektachrome.

[justabob]

3. I shoot black and white

but it is a pain in the ass if you don't have access to a dark room. It is hard to find 'real' black and white film too. They have that pseudo black and white film that can be processed in the moto-photo 1 hour color machine instead now. The last time I took film to be developed the effing lab screwed it up because I brought real bw film and they processed it in the color machine instead of sending it out. Sigh. Film is definitely on the way out and I wonder how long we will be able to find film to use. I suspect it will still be available, but much more expensive for film AND processing.

[Canuckistanian]

10. You don't need a darkroom for developing film

Just a "darkbag"


And a developing tank:


But for printing, you definitely need a darkroom.

[justabob]

11. true

yes... it was printing I was thinking of. Oh how I miss the dark room... so dark and cool and quiet.... better than therapy. :)

[Spike89]

4. Not gone, but marginalized

35mm won't truly be gone anytime soon, in my opinion. However, its days as a "consumer" product are rapidly coming to a close. That means that I expect the "big" companies to get out of the business soon, but perhaps they'll license or sell their film operations to specialty vendors. High end camera shops, hobby places, and big art supply businesses will probably have and stock 33mm film (at much higher prices!) long after the general retail market is gone. So, in short, you can still find "odd" formats, including B&W, but it'll get harder and more expensive. Likewise, the days of low-cost film developing through your local variety store/Costco/Walmart ect. are numbered. A few years at best, with developing prices steadily rising as economy of scale diminishes.

On a side note, SLR digital cameras like those from Nikon and Canon accept and use color and polarized filters (in fact, many "old" film-era filters fit and work fine on the new digital SLR cameras). Even lower-end SLR models enable a high degree of control over aperture, shutter speed, F-stops, etc. They even can capture in B&W. Really, the only thing you mentioned that digital can't replicate is the envelop and waiting. Far fewer caustic chemicals and the advantages of digital more than make up for the increasingly slight difference in quality (the best digital SLRs are arguably on a par or have surpassed the resolution/range of 35mm film).

Ironically, medium format film (like that shot in a high-end Hasselblad) may become easier to locate and find than the once dominant 35mm. For studio work and extreme large-format images, digital still lags slightly, but of course, Hasselblad has gone heavily into digital as well.

[Canuckistanian]

5. 35mm film and cameras will be around for a while yet

But as you can imagine, sales are down tremendously. A lot of marginal players are going to get out of the film business.

But Kodachrome is a special case. It's an amazing medium. I heard today that Kodachrome transparencies can last up to 200 years because of it's stability.

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Kodachrome over the years and I'm always amazed at some of the shots I've been able to achieve with it.

I really need to get a slide scanner. I have a lot memories and great shots on Kodachrome alone.

And since they'll still process the film until 2011, I may just go out and buy a few rolls just for old time's sake.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I miss Polaroid color film

Yes, it was not convenient to reproduce, but that sort of soft focus, sensual quality of the prints was unique ..... and very special.

[Canuckistanian]

17. I was never a fan of Polaroids

For me, they were used for producing a rough idea of what my final work would be. I never considered it as a medium for real work.

I took photography at a college and they warned us about getting too involved with Polaroids. They said that clients would reject Polaroids because of their inferior quality and lack of reproducible results.

Still fun at parties, though.

[ContinentalOp]

18. That's a good example though, because somebody is trying to revive Polaroid film.

http://www.the-impossible-project.com/

[regnaD kciN]

6. A trivial, if highly symbolic, business decision...

The fact is, Kodachrome was only making up 1% of Kodak's sales in recent years, and they were only producing it in one production run per year. And, even before digital, many of Kodachrome's biggest supporters shifted to using Fuji Velvia after it came out in the mid-'80s.

As to 35mm being phased out, keep in mind that the main market for 35mm is the motion-picture industry, not still photography. (Remember that, with Hollywood, most of the use of film is in release prints rather than the actual shooting. While it's possible to shoot "films" -- even high-end, big-budget epics -- on digital right now, it will be a long time before every multiplex and small-town movie theater is equipped with high-resolution digital projection equipment, so film will be needed until then.) If the "digital cinema," including theatrical exhibition facilities, had spread with the popularity of digital still photography, film would be but a memory by now.

[Statistical]

14. It is only a matter of time before digital replaces a substantial portion of film too.

I remember reading that those prints for the 4000+ theaters cost collectively about $100 million each year. Digital distribution via encrypted hard drives (reusable) would cost about 5% of that.

With cost of digital 4K projection equipment coming down it is only a matter of time before theaters can't afford NOT to switch to digital.

So smaller ones will stay film a long time but I think in 10 years the majority of theaters will be digital.

[alfredo]

20. That is what Apple was working toward. He wanted all theaters digital, and

movies beamed to theaters upon release. This is what drove Jobs from day one of his return to Apple. That's why MS wanted to kill QuickTime (knife the baby). They knew it was the Key to Apple's long term goal of being the content creation and delivery platform.

[TommyO]

8. Film is going to be a niche market

35mm film, both print and slides, will be around for quite a while, but getting your fix is going to become more expensive as time goes on. High-end dSLRs have already eclipsed the usable resolution of film, with many professional photographers, and amateurs like me, going completely digital and not missing the wait for film to be returned.

Eventually modern film photography will become an art form practiced by a relatively small number of people, much like early film photography was

[ContinentalOp]

9. Film isn't going away any time soon, if ever.

It will remain a niche and film may someday become expensive but it will exist.

And yes, there is still plenty of black and white film available. http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=itemlist&cat1=Film%20%26%20Darkroom&cat2=Film&cat3=Black%20%26%20White%20Film

In school we used Ilford.

[jmowreader]

12. Not-so-trivial business decision they delayed probably longer than necessary

I'm slightly worried about slide film; it's getting harder to come by and the labs that process it are too.

Color negative film? No worries. It's still very widely available, as is processing for it. (The nice thing about color neg printing is, the same machine can be used to print digital camera shots. You'll still need a film processing machine, but a lot of the time with that kind of equipment, they will install a processor in your facility if you contract to buy all your film and paper from them.) We might get down to one film, and I think it'll be one of the ISO 400 color neg films. But as far as it going away? No. Besides, there are WAY too many instances where film is the only way...one I've seen is a little "wedding reception pack" where they sell you 25 single-use cameras and processing; you hand these out to guests then ship them in a box to the lab. That would be outrageously expensive with digital. They also tell truckers, "carry a film camera in the cab, so if there's an accident you can take pictures of it." Little cheapie single-use camera's a hell of a lot better to do this with than a digital.

And yes, they still make black & white.

[hunter]

13. I'm shooting film again. I develop B&W too...

...both 120 and 35mm. Occasionally I'll use Fuji instant too, the old peel apart kind, but it's very expensive, about a dollar a picture.

Finding a nice SLR with a good lens at the Goodwill for $16 got me regularly using film again. I love the mechanical feel of the camera. In comparison, electronic cameras feel like junk to me, even the good ones. I also like "throw away" cameras for use in situations where I might lose or break a better camera. I'm not going to be upset if I lose a $1 thrift store camera and a $1 roll of expired or dollar store film.

Even so most of my photography is digital just because it's so inexpensive. You're not making any financial commitment when you push the button on a digital camera.

35mm film will be around for a long time I think, and a lot of people are still using 120. Those two film sizes are very old. 120 goes back to 1901, and the modern 35mm format goes back to 1935, although other still cameras used 35mm earlier but not in the handy kodak cartridge we still use today.

[Atman]

15. What's the environmental impact of film vs digital?

I figure the manufacturing process of the cameras themselves can't be that much different. So it gets down to the processing. Film processing uses some pretty nasty chemicals, which used up plenty of resources in their manufacture, and will further contribute to the mess when it comes time to drain the machines and change the processing chemicals.

An SD card which holds 10-20X the number of pictures as a single roll of 35mm film can't possibly be as harmful to the environment as processing even one roll of print or slide film.

.

[hunter]

19. Manufacturing digital cameras requires some very nasty chemicals.

The manufacture of LCD displays especially releases some very potent and long lasting greenhouse gasses. Electronics are not clean and they don't last long. Where did all those 1.2 meg digital cameras go? My wife and I are on our fourth digital camera, and two of those are broken and not worth repairing... yet my son is using the Nikormat my wife used in college for his own college photography class. I regularly take photographs with cameras that are fifty years old or more. My oldest working camera is a hundred years old. (It might even be older.)

Developing film does use some toxic chemicals. But modern chemistries are much less toxic than older formulations and there are quite a few chemistries these days in which the silver itself (as a heavy metal) is the most worrisome component of the waste stream. Most of that silver is recycled in commercial operations.

The biggest horror of digital photography is the amount of electricity it uses. There is a huge amount of coal being burned to support the computers that digital photography requires.

When I had a darkroom the darkroom light used 7 watts. The enlarger I used to make my prints had a sixty watt light, and that was only turned on a few seconds for each print.

My computer uses a lot more power than that whenever I'm messing around with my digital pictures.

[Touchdown]

21. It's only one in many lines of film being disc'd.

There will always be film for the forseeable future. Kodak, Fuji, Illford will still make film. Kodachrome was a slide film, and digital has cut into slides much bigger than color negative and B/W film. It was also a very old formula, and other slide films like Fuji's Velvia have supplanted it as the standard bearer in slide film.

BTW: My Nikon D200 digital has a B&W function.