Look inside the factory where Kodak Ektachrome is (re)born

Phil what you're saying makes no sense 😉
"Film was alive and well"= Film as in a support or art form? Anyone can shoot film, all it takes is a camera and some taste.
"No reason why digital images can not last indefinitely"= how about absence of a decent accessible storage format? How about absence of education on the matter? How about the fact that digital photography is mainly subject to the unpredictable and frequent changes in the stock market? Like, desktop computer sales are plummeting, what will you do with hard drives in 15 years?.

1 - "You can’t read image files from 10-15 years ago?"
Yup. I could easily list 100 photo or design programs, each with proprietary file extensions that have disappeared since 2000. One good example: Adobe Photo Deluxe (Adobe has a history of making proprietary file formats based programs and then discontinuing their products). And don't even get me started with video formats (.mov? .qt? .avi? .divx?... ahuh)

2 - "All my old DVDs with images on them are still readable today." There is no "debate" about DVD versus film negative life expectancy. Film negatives from 1900s and before are found, restored, projected. Or we could wait 100 years and see IF DVD is as solid as film when it has existed for 100 years, then decide to go with it.

3 - "Of course I transferred them to Blu-Ray so they can go in the trash." I wonder if when you happily hop from one format to another every 5 year or so, you take a second to consider the impact technologies designed to be obsolete have on the environment. We've already filled up the landfills of the world with cassettes, vinyl records, laserdiscs, minidiscs, CDs, countless USB gizmos... Another win for film.

4 - "I simply selected the folders to save and sent them over to the Blu-Ray to be burned" - if I have 1.6 Tb of photo data, how many times do I have to stop "watching TV or doing chores" to put a new Blu-Ray in the burner? Quite a few I'd say. Can't really go for a day trip if you have to feed new blank disks in the machine every so often.

5 - "Today you can buy an inexpensive usb to floppy disc cable to read floppy disks." Ok just a little heads up, Apple discontinued USB in all their best-selling machines. Manufacturers lobby hard for wireless data exchange (Bluetooth, AirDrop works great, but try a 1Gb file...). And lastly, desktop computer sales have been plummeting since the iPhone and iPad have taken over. It's a changing, unpredictable landscape - film is not. That's all I'm saying.

....... and I almost forgot about that truly wondrous moment when you are carrying a magazine fully loaded with your most precious slides, and trip over a cable, sending them all flying across the room!

You can still buy them.

Because fuji film emulators, emulate in name only. nothing that these filters represent is anything like its film counterpart

I still use Tetenal three bath kits to develop my Ektachrome 4x5 slides at 38 degrees centigrade with all three baths "au bain Marie". Works fine and, indeed, there is more leeway than the instructions suggest.

I used to develop my own including slides taken on the earlier E4 process. I am sure the temperature requirements for the older E4 process were lower.

Used to load my own 35mm film cassettes as well.

You could buy the film in bulk in 30m rolls and get twenty odd rolls of 36 exposures out of it (might of been more rolls, can't remember).

It made for "cheap" film. Process and mount the slides yourself and the whole photography hobby became affordable for a student as I was then.

Jon Porter doesn't understand the finer things in life. Its ok. Enjoy your Sonos and Digital cams. I'll enjoy the elegance of film, class A tube amps, and vintage Klipsh Cornwall speakers.

The elegance of film? I'll keep that in mind as I finish shortening my life scanning my old film. 🤣🤪

Hey PhilDunn, you have the lab scan it for you. Then you can enjoy much more free time for your choosing. You'll save even more time than shooting with your digicam and spending hours in post, lightroom or whatever software is on your machine.

.--- --- .... -. / .--. --- .-. - . .-. / .. ... / .-. .. --. .... -

@The Davinator , You can emulate the look of different films with DXO and other post processing software. You can compare what a certain shot/scene might have looked like with a different film or camera body. I think some cameras might have this "film emulation" option/feature built-in also.

Class A tube amp? Sure, if you have a power plant line feeding directly into your house. And, by the way, why? Why would you use tube amps in class A and throw out their primary advantage, which is more graceful handling of crossover?

Davinator, because arty types like yourself still use and like film doesn't mean it isn't obsolete. As a method of capturing the moment, which to the vast majority of the population (and professional photographers) that is what photography is all about, it has been superceded by a far more efficient medium.
From dictionary.com - 'no longer in general use'

Yep I know all about scanning; I've been doing it since the first commercial film scanners were sold. Most of my scans need to be max resolution for my own requirements. I often save RAW scans that include the infrared dust removal channel in Vuescan. They can be reprocessed in the future without having to rescan the film again. My output settings for standard files yield rather flat 16 bit TIFs that have already had infrared dust removal performed. The vast majority of the editing then occurs in Lightroom. If it's a clean film to begin with then I can literally be done editing in seconds.

Some of the best audiophile equipment uses tubes. Check out Marantz as an example. $$,$$$.$$

Or better yet Macintosh.

That's what happens to an old mind without coffee - it turns to mush. I meant Macintosh, not Marantz.

Klipsch speakers a very good. I have always found Paradigm a bit bright sounding. I use B&W 802 Diamond on my main setup. My source material is mainly analog.

@nyc - Interesting. I'll make a note of trying them sometime. Thanks.

I don't know about speaker stuff, but for headphone amps I feel solid state tech is more than good enough. You can drive plenty well any of the 1000-4000usd phones with very cheap solid state amps (I have jds labs o2, or schiit mangi 3). More often the tubes tend to colorate / distort the sound, thus not reproduce the source authentically. This can be a problem if you're content creator (musician).

For the umpteenth time, only 8x10 large format film has an advantage over digital and that's simply because there are no digital cameras made with sensors big enough to complete.

Consider checking the circulation in your darkroom because I think them chemicals are frying your brain.

You’re a film zealot and a troll.

Michael Reichman didn't settle any debate...in fact, he was harshly criticized for erroneous results that were not duplicatable and instead just fed his personal bias. As to resolution, when I say you are wrong, you are wrong.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9932828572/photos/3779632/img_6271

I think it only appears as counterculture when you have many people here giving film shooters a hard time. What is surprising tho, is that many people who have both film and digital cameras won't abandon film. I know I reach for my film camera if the work personally matters. Though digital is nice for real estate, mls.. or anything that requires bulk amounts of images

I don’t see any film shooters being given a hard time just because they shoot film. They simply like to spread a lot of misinformation about film vs digital. Shoot film if you want to but don’t be saying it has objectively better image quality than digital or that it's cheaper to use and not expect those falsehoods to be challenged.

Most veteran film shooters abandoned film a long time ago. It is mostly young hipsters that have fueled a mini resurgence. It won’t last.

Sorry Phil...there is no misinformation. You simply dont know enogh about the topic to form a true opinion. The are image quality attributes that exceed digital. You simply dont know them because of a lack of experience.

Phil, I couldn't agree more! And you strike me as someone with a fair bit of experience with film...from shooting it to scanning it.

And speaking of falsehoods, look who turned up. :D

I was being partly facetious, people have always looked for difference to amuse themselves.

Ah...projection!

-Jammed slides

-popping out of focus due to heat

-inadvertant upside down or backwards

-slide sorting tables

-blown out bulbs($$$) and burned fingers

Brings back memories!

But you can buy projectors for crazy low prices used now, if that's what people want.
Just like enlargers.

Know what you mean about enlargers. I sold my enlarger LPL 6600 when I moved to Japan back in 1993. Purchased a new LPL7 700 in Tokyo ( different voltage compared to Australia )

Think I used it about 5 times. Still in a box in the apartment, after moving back to Australia.

If your boring your neighbors with slide shows than your slide shows are bad or your photography is bad.

@DiffractionLtd - Not digital projectors. Digital projectors can be used by pixel peepers to show how bad their photography really is without pixel peeping. They can project at 100% on a wall and see the whole frame at once.

Hobbies are great. I don't think making things difficult is really a great hobby. it is more about making your hobby "exclusive" than actually being any good at "listening to music" or "taking photos"

So the question is: are you making things difficult to be interesting or because you have some nostalgic affections or because you believe it is truly "better."

I mean daVinci could have taken 10,000 tiny canvases and painted individual pieces of the Mona Lisa and then tiled them together in a mosaic to make it more difficult. But that would get in the way. As do many of these affects we see today.

Since "everything has been done" academics and artists struggle to contribute - and these contributions tend to be in this tortured regime of using obscure processes rather than constructing a new visual vocabulary. Like some morose episode of Portlandia.

"Oh, I only listen to music on vinyl, through a specific tube amplifier, on headsets from the era, through an AM radio, ..."

"My son just paid off his medical degree being *a film photographer with a cell phone,"*

Does not compute. ⬆️

Your son and his friend have simply taken successful advantage of a very niche market. I would have laughed at him if he said to me "real artists shoot film."

Is his process pure analog?

Doesn't compute???

Why???

"Your son and his friend have simply taken successful advantage of a very niche market."

Your right, a growing niche market, just good business sense, I guess. It worked for them.

"I would have laughed at him if he said to me real artists shoot film."

Ya, interesting statement, all though he shoots with a lot of different traveling photographers. He's now working in a tier 1/magnet hospital and doesn't owe any money. All from a niche market. Go figure.

As for his process, all I know is he has a complete darkroom, he sends his film out for processing and printing from the negative, unless he needs or choices to print. He shoots a lot of B&W too.

Roger J.

Where's Paul Simon ?

I just processed a roll of 120 Ektachrome that was stored in my freezer and than refrigerator for more than 15 years, had it scanned, there was no noticeable base fogging. The photos look great.
Its back to the future.

@Gearsau He just finished his "farewell" concert and retired.

I want a brand new Edsel. I'll look cool and will be able to pick-up chicks!

Digital photography is here to stay for good and that is good for the consumers. I grew up with films and well aware of their limitations. I made the switch quickly as my kids came along - so glad I made the switch and never look back. The ability to see the histogram immediately and make adjustment if necessary were priceless! Also learning post-processing of the RAW files were much easier than processing films and making prints in the darkroom. As much as I loved Kodachrome and later Fuji Velvia transparency films, digital sensors have much better dynamic range while able to capture images at higher ISO. ISO 400 films were the fastest I can used for wildlife and sports. Today, it can be done with at least 2-3 stops higher. But without the experience working with films, I would not enjoy and appreciate digital photography as much as I am today.

nick

i agree with your take on the advantages of digital for photographers from rank amateur to pro , but cannot see it as a reason to abandon 100 percent the technology of chemical film .... it is still a vibrant medium of artistic expression as well as an extra technology for recording the behavior of light in industry research pure science and a perhaps dozen other things we have yet to know in humanities exploration of the future of technology in the coming decades and centuries .

while 99.9 percent may benefit practically and economically from the move to digital lets love and cultivate that ,01 percent for its promise , its legacy and its "itself" as a species of technology worth retaining . where nothing and no one gains thru its murder.....its loss.

I´m afraid that there are far too many billion (miilion million) digital photos taken already...

the "far too many" .... and the zillions" that would be the floodgates surging with digital photography done without purpose or restraint flooding the internet and so called social sites ..

.. chemical work was measured reserved and donewith respect for : number of exposures .... cost ....and purpose

spray and pray is condition of the digital age ....36 shots and change the roll was part of another , perhaps more thoughtful age .....

Okay, I'll move on because you say it's time to move on. Thanks for the good advice. Apparently cheap is better.

"the experience of shooting with a purely mechanical camera without nothing that distracts you is in my opinion priceless."

I'm not distracted when using my digital camera.

@PhilDunn: the features you are not using are distractions, sometimes even the review of the shot is a distraction between you an the environment around you. Don't get me wrong, those modern features are really useful, because of this I prefer digital 80-90% of the times, but sometimes not having the features you don't need feels just better. It's a generalization, but to make things clear to me the special edition digital leica without screen would be a more film like experience than using an eos film camera.

@Lassoni: Truth be told I generally shoot black and white film that I process myself, and I scan it with a dslr to a 36 mpx file that once I invert the curves behaves like a normal raw file, something I have a certain ability to develop. Still the way film deals with highlights and the grain structure upon which the detail is laid down makes the whole thing different to a digital simulation. But the possibility to use a mechanical camera, easy to use but where you deliberately set everything, is still my first reason.

Why not use both? I want to shoot 4k video in 60p (I already do in 30p) and also shoot film. Everything has it's uses and for those technically obsessed with GAS there's cheap source of countless cameras and lenses to enjoy. Sure you can emulate film on computer but what's the point sitting there for hours and tweaking some sliders when you can experience the real thing? It's like using VR to visit faraway places vs having actual holiday there. And I say it knowing well that VR will become cheap and fun for the masses as today is phone photography.

There also comes point when comparing megapixels and corner sharpness becomes boring and unless you print large posters for galleries you won't enjoy most of what's the digital medium capable of. Okay, some people like pixel peeping, that's also true :)

There's even a large Steve Jobs poster hanging on the wall of the control room. That image has a certain musty, '80s quality to it; they must have found it deep inside Kodak's glory days archives. Either that, or the new guys at Kodak have a sense of humor.

And yet, the famous series of portraits of Steve Jobs....were done on film....because he requested it instead of digital gear.

And yet Apple at it's most successful, under Jobs, didn't use non-digitally altered film images of his products. 😉

It's true though

Kodachromeguy - I wasn't trying to be clever, not sure what you think is 'clever' about my statement, one that has been used many time before. I'm not scoring high on originality there. It just that I know many photographers through variaous photography groups I belong to and I cannot think of one serious photographer that uses film. I know that is a sweeping statement and I am sure you and others can point me in the direction of many serious photographers that use film, but for me it is, like vinyl records, a medium whose time has past. However there is a fashion in certain circles for an analogue vibe hence vinyl records and film cameras keep going. I'm certainly not discouraging it. If people want to use film good for them, just make sure you don't get your beard caught in the film wind lever. You won't see me getting excited becasue some old film production line has been dusted off and plugged in again.

I'd like to know who is serious photgrapher :)

It sure is part of the retro fashion but I think a lot of young people are interested in old tech as they were born into the digital age and didn't experience proper film cameras (which are beyond the cheapest point and shoots or single use cameras). It's fun to discover that old SLRs with prime lens can make good pictures too, you need to be more careful how to use it correctly but you'll also see how people made photos before our very convenient digital cameras with live views and tons of settings. For someone like me it's both challenge to make nice picture with simple technology and exloration adventure where you can try cheaply different cameras and film emulsions and see how they work.

Similarly cassettes are remembered as poor quality medium because it was used in cheap equipment with zero maintenance and most of the cassettes themselves had also the cheapest, lowest grade tape. With high end tapedeck the quality is much better.

*Unless* it's wild animals, or animals that are kept in harmful circumstances, I see no objection to using animal-derived products. Those who object to eating or using the by-products of domestic animals should perhaps consider the fact that the cows, pigs, sheep and other farm animals that they love so much would not actually exist anymore if demand for their by- products ceased.

"Those who object to eating or using the by-products of domestic animals should perhaps consider the fact that the cows, pigs, sheep and other farm animals that they love so much would not actually exist anymore if demand for their by- products ceased." Non-factual nonsense.

Eric - So you really believe that domestic cows, pigs and sheep would continue to be bred if we all stopped using/eating animal products? Really? Farmers don't keep animals for fun, they need to provide economic return.

You don't live in a rural area, do you?
Not everyone that keeps animals, raises them for slaughter.
I'm clearly not referring to herds of thousands...but individual farms keeping those animals for renewables --milk, eggs, wool, etc. and yes, companionship. Your post was incorrect.

Memo to EricAotearoa
I followed your link. This is what I've got

Error 404: File Not Found

The requested page is not found. This may happen due to the following reasons:

Page or file is outdated, renamed, moved, or does not exist.
You typed the address incorrectly, like http://www.example.com/pgae.html instead of http://www.example.com/page.html

Please contact your webmaster if you are not sure what goes wrong.

Maybe they got short of gelatin

probert - Why not? Many people, including myself, developed Ektachrome and other E6 slide films at home in the past, and if there is a resurgence in demand for slide film, there will also be a resurgence in demand for the chemical kits and developing tanks etc required to home-process them.

Film is all about maintaining and enjoying personal control over the entire picture making process.

Having pointed that out, I'll freely admit that I have no intention of returning to film though.

Never processed my own color film, but spent around 15 years in labs and darkrooms working on c4 and ciba. On some hot summer days my armpit sweat was tinged with blood. This stuff can be nasty no matter how careful you are.

But if a rental darkroom reopened - I might be back in there. Digital prints can be nice, but they don't have the depth of a C4.

probert - Yes a lot of the chemicals used in the photographic industry certainly were nasty, as I know from experience. But I believe that the nastier chemicals are no longer legally available to the general public. So the E6 process would have to be revised or replaced with something more environmentally acceptable.

Diversity is outdated and obsolete. *facepalm*

I'll make my post 3rd grade readylevrl next time for you then! 🙄

kodachromeguy - I hope you are not implying that the *only* "real photographers" are the ones who use film!

It's likely that the equipment is designed to work with these PCs / the PCs are designed to work with the equipment. I'm not interested enough to read the actual article, but I assume that they are just bringing all the original equipment used to make the film back into working order, rather than using new equipment.

Yup, sometimes things can't be ported to new hardware, or it just wouldn't be cost efficient to do so. As long as they have backup hardware just in case these croak, they're fine.

Late 90s monitors. No need to replace them if they do what they need to do, unless they wish to save on energy.