Kodak retires 'film that captured youth of Baby Boomers'
Filed under: Extracurriculars, Shopping, Technology
As the Paul Simon song goes, "Mamma don't take my Kodachrome away..." But Kodak is doing it anyway, retiring its iconic Kodachrome color film, effective immediately. I shoot film. (Much to the shock and chagrin of friends and casual acquaintances and family members who see the receipts for processing.) And a few months ago, I was shopping for my favorite, Kodak Portra VC.
I went to photo lab after photo lab, finding only one roll of 100-speed film at a Wolf's Camera that was going out of business; and nothing at my regular haunt, Citizen's Photo. Are they retiring my film? I wondered, panicky.
Finally at a huge camera store I spied a totally empty film shelf, but for a five-pack of expired portrait film. Bingo! I rushed home to make sure it was still available at B&H Photo Video, the New York-based photo store of record. Thank the gods of photography, it was still being produced.
But for fans of Kodak's famous first commercially-successful color film, introduced in 1935, the hunt will now begin in earnest. Kodak is retiring Kodachrome, saying it's too complex and expensive to produce. Other films -- such as my fave, Kodak Portra, and commercial heavyweights Kodak Max and Kodak Gold -- now account for greater than 99% of Kodak's still-picture films. Due to its complexity, only one commercial lab in the world, Dwayne's Photo, in Parsons, Kan., still processes it.
The lab, which has committed to continue processing the film through 2010, has a sad message on its homepage, saying how sorry the lab's owners are to see it go. "Kodachrome was truly an icon of the 20th century and has certainly been a very important part of Dwayne's business for many years. Once it's gone, nothing will ever capture "those nice bright colors" in quite the same way," they write, referring to the Paul Simon song "Kodachrome."Kodak will stop producing the film, which was only made at one plant, immediately and expects retail stocks will last through the fall, unless fans stockpile. As for me: I'm headed to buy a roll or two, so I can capture a bit of my film heritage before it, too, is gone.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
6-22-2009 @ 8:23PM
Mary Kearney said...
Oh my gosh-my heart is broken!
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:31PM
Gunwriter said...
I made a lot of money selling magazine articles using Kodachrome slide pics to go with them but all the Editors switched to digital. 8.0 Megapixels will beat kodachrome (TIFF or RAW) every time and you don't have to wait two weeks for the rude Kodak people to get it back to you
6-23-2009 @ 4:49AM
Master Shake said...
Try Fuji Velvia. It is a million times better.
6-22-2009 @ 8:24PM
Laurie said...
I just hope they don't ever do away with throw away cameras. Iv taking my best pictures with thoes.
Reply
6-23-2009 @ 11:30AM
Nick said...
lol
KODAK prefers the term
"SINGLE USE" camera
goodness knows I've heard that term enuff
6-22-2009 @ 8:28PM
earth mama said...
bummer.... my last photo shoot was with kodachrome converted to CD, unbelievable colors and saturation.....guess I'll have to go to RGB Film on Highland Ave from now on.
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 9:18PM
ed said...
I ususally stay w/ the cutting edge of technology. I was early to go digital & have gone back & forth. I computerized the med records in my office '88, only to later pull the plug (because everything, like old records, lab results, etc., etc. is on 8 1/2 x 11) because I needed hard copy anyway, so it was just duplication. Eventually, digital got better and I tried new cameras, again only to go back because of some weakness. I'll again retire film one day when digital improves. Right now, I'm back to a good SLR. I get my film processes in an hour, with double prints, and a CD. So, I get real prints for less than 10 cents each, the picture is better, and I load my CD pics onto the computer. Even experts will tell you film gives a better picture, although it's close today. I have back-up negatives. I can shoot in rapidly one after another. I never run out of battery. I can use a viewfinder and don't have to hold the camera 3' in front of me. Even Consumers Reports says that a viewfinder is highly desirable. So, this works best for me right now. Oh, and I never worry about having to wait until a roll is taken. Film is very cheap today, so if I take say 10 pics and want them, I just have that processed and only pay for what prints. Yeah, on those occasions I may waste $1 worth of film, but a digital camera of equivalent quality would cost $1,000 or more. To boot, it's all done for me while I shop. I don't have to print, plug in and download, burn to a CD, etc. Digital pictures approaching my film quality have an enormous file size, besides, the format will change and we'll again have to convert. 20 yr. old negatives still scan perfectly.
Reply
6-23-2009 @ 1:28PM
Lynn said...
I shoot both digital and film. Film is definitely better quality still, but slower to get processed (depending on who you deal with, assuming no home darkroom). I have my doubts that digital will every overtake film entirely among professionals. I carry my digital around with me most of the time and just got my father's old Ziess-Icon film camera. That one dates back to the 1950's and is the same one I learned to shoot with. My father died June 1st and I got the camera shortly before getting on the plane back to New Orleans.
Lynn
6-22-2009 @ 8:43PM
Barry said...
The other films time are also running out. The digital revolution has by far increased the possibilities for serious photography far beyond what film offered in the past thanks to computers built into top quality digital cameras, and then further possibilities with programs like photoshop.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:02PM
Rich39 said...
Use to use the Kodachrome film for still life etc. Also use the 25 speed. Use a tripod, cable release and light meter.
I miss the old cameras. Back then I took photographs. Great shots. Now with digital I just take a bunch of pictures. And make them look good using my computer.
Great photographers are gone.
Of course nothing is forever. Today no writers, producers, real artist. etc. Kind of sad in a way.
The young won't understand what I'm talking about.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:08PM
sayze jane said...
I am a boomer. So many changes thru the years. I tried to sell an old polaroid camera at my garage sale for 2$ No takers.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:23PM
mark said...
Gosh, I was so happy to read Ed's and Rich39's comments...
You have both validated why I should continue to romance my 30 odd year old, Minolta SRT 101. I enjoyed years of creativity, challenge and pride using b&w, kodachrome and echtachrome! (I migrated to slides because of the color, the ability to share in presentations and the fact that I could at least 'touch' them.) Such a romantic!
I have been thinking a lot recently about buying a digital, at least for the convenience and use on my children's organization website...www.thetobycenter.org... Yet, I continue to struggle with the meaning of such an act...isn't it abandonment? Try as I may, though I come close to purchasing the digital, I haven't purchased one and feel redeemed for not yet doing so!~!~! Go figure!
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:51PM
Eric said...
I am disappointed about the news about Kodachrome to be put out to pasture, but I am not all that surprised. I have seen fewer and fewer film boxes of Kodachrome at camera shops, and I haven't seen any of them at all anymore at most other retail stores. The fact more and more digital cameras and digital "films" are being sold makes me even less surprised.
As chagrined as I am in hearing Kodachrome is being discontinued, I have to remember it has lived a good 74 year long life; although I never saw any Kodachrome pictures that were taken from either side of my family until just over a year before my parents were married.
I read about Kodachrome being brand new to the market during the time of the Hindenburg disaster; in a book about the Hindenburg I saw a color picture of the burning wreckage, and "... the newly released Kodachrome..." was credited for catching the scene in such realistic color.
I've also seen some color home movies of young Lyndon Johnson and President Roosevelt together when he and Lady Bird were at Washington D.C.
Finally, being an occasional 3-D fanatic myself, I read about the Viewmasters released and sold for the first time at the first New York Worlds Fair, and that Kodachrome was the film that had always been used in Viewmaster reels ever since Viewmaster was introduced. By the way, I have used Kodachrome in A PAIR OF 35MM CAMERAS to take my own stereoscopic 3-D pictures, and I have always been pleased with the results every time I had viewed them together through a dismantled, faceplate & eyepieces only Viewmaster.
I am sad to see Kodachrome go. But I will continue to view the slides and the 8mm movies that my parents have always taken during my childhood, and the many Kodak Instamatic slides I took in the late 60's and early 70's, and I will continue to view my own 35mm slides I had continued to shoot during all of my 20's, 30's, etc.
Kodachrome has lived a long and prosperous life.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:35PM
Angie said...
The best pictures I have ever taken were with my Kodak Instamatic and Kodak 110 film. I used it one weekend and bought the film at Walmart. When I went to get more film when I picked up photos, the very next weekend, the store didn't have any and said Kodak didn't make that film anymore!!!!
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 9:47PM
kevin said...
Remember those flashes ya had to buy every time ya wanted to take pictures. Once they were used ya had to throw the things out.. WOW I'm getting old..
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 10:55PM
Ditz said...
I remember the disposable flash bulbs and flash strips. When we were kids my mother would save the used bulbs and we would use them to make christmas ornaments for the tree, lol!
6-23-2009 @ 12:04AM
I remember said...
Yeah, weren't those in the form of a cube ya snapped onto the top of the camera? I remember those, my parents had that camera. LOL (Small silver & black camera.) Each side of the cube (4 sides of course) had a little bulb that was good for one flash, and the cube turned to the next side after snapping a picture. I still remember going w/Mom to the "Kodak Dealer" to get more film, cubes and the used film developed. Those were nice memories.
6-22-2009 @ 9:52PM
marigwanna420 said...
lol, the people who think that film pictures look better than digital are the ones who buy the $50 special.... splurge on a nice camera.... $300-$500 and you will open up a whole new world of photography that you cant get with film....300-500 is fairly cheap for a good camera...... remember that
Reply
6-23-2009 @ 2:44AM
MzDitz said...
I spent a little over $1000 on my digital... and I still prefer my $800 film camera. there's something about film cameras where it's all about the photographer and the knowledge and creativity that goes into the shoot. Digitals can be manipulated and so much is lost. This past vacation I took both cameras as well as my cell phone and mostly used my film. I did use my blackberry cell phone camera several times when I was out on the sea doo... only because I didn't want to risk dropping my cameras in the water
6-22-2009 @ 9:59PM
Lynn said...
I wish they wouldn't retire Kodachrome, but I can understand. That film had a really complicate process to produce slides from the roll of film. C-4 I believe was the designation. That and Kodacolor were the two films I learned to shoot with, starting when I was around four years old. Etkachrome was another slide film out there. It has a more bluish hint to it which made it especially good for aerial photography and shooting in the mountains with snow, etc. Kodachrome had a warmer color balance which is one of the reasons it was so popular for so long ... but a nightmare to process. You CAN'T develop it at home. E-6 (Ektachrome) can be processed in four steps now, six with the old E-4 process. I never did learn the details of the C-4 process and why it was so complicated, but I just knew you HAD to send it out unless you wanted to spend several hundred thousand dollars for a home lab! I sent mine out :) My father taught me shooting and darkroom skills as a child and I've been into it ever since at 55 years old now and counting ...
Lynn
Reply