Kodachrome film is shuffling off to the retirement home after a 74-year run, Eastman Kodak Co. said today. The brand now accounts for a fraction of 1% of total sales of still-picture films, according to the statement.
“Mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away.”
-Paul Simon
Wow, not many brands get immortalized in a pop song.
Back in the 70’s, when I was living in Montreal, I had an even older book published by Kodak about how to take good pictures. One chapter was on color photography. Stamped in the margin was this note: “Kodachrome is not yet available in Canada”
Here is their farewell slideshow. I didn’t see it in the linked article.
Some stunning pictures there.
Sigh. Nobody understands the difference between negatives and chromes anymore. 
You can have my remaining stock Fujichrome Velvia when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I’m shy to admit that I don’t even know what Kodachrome is. I know the song. I assumed that it was a brand name for something once sold by Eastman Kodak, but what it was and when it was used was a mystery to me. I skimmed the Wikipedia article on it, but even now I’m a bit confused.
Photography is one of those things that I’m afraid to get into for fear of spoiling my innocence. Right now I can just look at a point-n-click pic and say, “eh, that doesn’t look profressional,” “the colors are weird,” or “I wonder why that’s blurry.” But get me the right piece of equipment, a couple lessons and a textbook, and suddenly I’m going to be the family photographer. I don’t want that burden, nor the burden of being a critic.
JerseyFrank, there’s basically two kinds of film in the world: negative film and reversal film. Negative film produces shades/colors that are the opposite of the real image, so when it’s printed on negative photo paper, it turns out the right way. Reversal film, also called slide film, positive film (and in color often called chrome film or chromes) develops the colors the way they are in the original image. This means you can mount the original film in slides for projection, without going through a printing process.
Kodachrome was a popular brand of color reversal film which was known for its especially vivid color reproduction, and began the era when pro (and good amateurs) would often use only chromes for color work, even if it was never intended for slides, because the results just looked better than negative film.
However, the development process for Kodachrome was not very convenient, and the E-6 process made color slide film development easier. Kodak’s own E-6 product, Ektachrome, soon became more popular than Kodachrome because of the ease of developing. The Fujichrome Velvia that I mentioned is also an E-6 process.
Kodak still makes their Ektachrome for the time being, but Kodachrome was the last hold-out for the old process which no other film uses anymore.
I read that Polaroids are coming back into fashion. Just as the factory was about to be closed, some entrepreneurs decided to re-issue them as the new hip and trendy must-have.
Kodachrome had great reds. unfortunately, all my photography was for outdoor stuff, not people, so a good red wasn’t that important. Ektachrome was a much better film for my needs.
What is that car in No 26? Is it a Citroen?
Old Kodachrome slides seem to fade to yellow-red-brown while old Ektachrome slides head off towards blue-green. I scanned 50-some-odd of those rectangular “mazazine” boxes used for slide projectors from my Dad’s collection and did the color corrections in Photoshop. Overall the Kodachromes were easier to color-correct back to life.
I do. As do many, many longtime photography enthusiasts.
I cut my teeth on Kodachrome. I can remember using it when it only had an ASA of 12. (ASA = ISO)
K25 was what I used for most of my formative years as a young photographer. Imagine my joy and wonder when K64 was introduced! I wasn’t a big fan of K200, tho. Nor of the pushing* (at substantial cost) that was introduced in the 80s. 1980s, btw.
Steve McCurry, who took that photo, is also the author in many of the pictures in the Kodachrome slide show listed above.
yeah, but wouldn’t that photo be just as famous if it have been taken with any other kind of film?
The photo is so striking, and thought- provoking, not because of special coloring, but because of the girl’s face…and especially her eyes. She stares at you with a haunting, disturbing look that makes you want to stare back, and ask her what she’s thinking.
Any type of film would have worked for that shot, wouldn’t it?
Most likely.
The point of citing that, tho, was likely to show how experienced users learn the capabilities and nuances of a particular film in order to exploit them more effectively. A certain bit of under (or sometimes over) exposure, for example, sometimes slightly altered how certain colours would be rendered in the final image media. Especially would a working pro get used to his equipment and film choices, thus freeing up the outworking of creativity for specific intent.
Of course, ymmv, as always in Cafe Society.
Except, this is MPSIMS.
Odd. I could’ve sworn we were in Cafe.