Kodachrome slides

[Valleyline]

Just heard this morning that the photographer who took 93 digital photos of the Lacy Peterson crime scene lost all of the photos. There are lots of similar digital camera horror stories. So much for the foibles of electronics. It's still nice to have that slide in your hand when you need it. I think the best combination is to photograph on film (preferably slides) and then scan them. I have scanned almost 10,000 slides going back to 1947 and only have another 10,000 to go! I recently acquired a new Sony DVD player for $90 that plays photo CD's in jpg format that I can easily burn on my computer. The old slides look good on the TV screen and I still have the slides for more ambitious shows. If digital projectors ever come down in price that may be the way for RR photographers to go. I switched to Fujichrome about 10 years ago and wish I did it earlier. I don't think Kodak has much of a future in film, particularly Kodachrome.

[Anonymous]

I just have a conventional camera (that has been around for over a dozen years) and I've also tested with a digital, I don't see any difference! I'll be still using slides and prints until they aren't avalible.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD


How much longer Kodak will continue to produce any slide film much less process it is anybody's guess, but I think the day will not be too far off when slide film will be hard to get. The same thing happened to movie film when the camcorders came in even though they were still expensive. In the meantime don't throw away your Carousel Slide projectors.

I'm not sure how much longer thar Kodak is going to be producing slide film, but I have heard that they are going to stop making the projectors and carousels in 2006 and stop servicing them in 2011. So I would have to guess that the film would go about the same time. Why produce the film if there is going to be no way to show them besides scanning them and making them digital.

Scott

[eastside]

Sad to see another place that I’ve dealt with for so long and become so familiar with pass away.

Those of you who have large collections of slides should consider scanning them for posterity (don’t be humble!). If you buy a scanner, consider that KR is a high contrast film that requires considerable skill in scanning. I’ve written an article which may assist potential scanner users:

http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS2000Notes/casestudyI/scanning_kodachrome_on_the_nikon_caseI.htm

The same site contains more material on scanning.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cherokee woman

Know it's been posted/replied to before, but HOW do we get our pictures posted on this
site? i.e., say we have a picture in our MY PICTURES file that we want to share.

Yes, this one get's asked and answered a lot!

First, the image needs to be stored in a location on the web. It needs to be in Jpeg format. I have a photo editor that I use to shrink the file size down to a reasonable level, since my ISP only allows me 25 Meg of storage. Then I upload the photos. All that's left to do is know the address of your storage space, and place that URL between the img forum command, like this: [ img]URL/filename[/img] It should show up when you hit preview.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Let me put in my 5 cents worth. I have shot slide film exclusively, and one of the respondents is absolutely right, prints are "throwaways" because their images are not stable. I have my Kodachrome slides that I shot 50 years ago, back when the railroads ran E 7's and Alco PA's on passenger trains, and they still look as if they had just come out of the camera. This is in spite of the fact they were not stored under the most favorable conditions for about the first 15 years of their existence. (Back then our house wasn't air conditioned until 1964)

I used Kodachrome 10 (ASA 10) at first until it was upgraded to ASA 25. By then a faster Ektachrome film, ASA 64, came on the market, and I used that until Kodak brought out Ektachrome 160 which was upgraded to 200. Along the way I experimented with "Brand X" films with "Brand Y" processing (what railfan didn't?), and most of those slides have faded. I also found slides taken with Ektachrome film, but not processed by Kodak have tended to fade, and it seems slides taken with Ektachrome film, and processed by Kodak their images are still stable. What experience hav e the rest of you had with Ektachrome film processing?

I switched to Kodachrome 200 when it first came on the market in 1987, and I have used it ever since. It is a warm film so it tends to accentuate the red end of the color spectrum especially at sunset, but I like it.

How much longer Kodak will continue to produce any slide film much less process it is anybody's guess, but I think the day will not be too far off when slide film will be hard to get. The same thing happened to movie film when the camcorders came in even though they were still expensive. In the meantime don't throw away your Carousel Slide projectors.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Let me put in my 5 cents worth. I have shot slide film exclusively, and one of the respondents is absolutely right, prints are "throwaways" because their images are not stable. I have my Kodachrome slides that I shot 50 years ago, back when the railroads ran E 7's and Alco PA's on passenger trains, and they still look as if they had just come out of the camera. This is in spite of the fact they were not stored under the most favorable conditions for about the first 15 years of their existence. (Back then our house wasn't air conditioned until 1964)

I used Kodachrome 10 (ASA 10) at first until it was upgraded to ASA 25. By then a faster Ektachrome film, ASA 64, came on the market, and I used that until Kodak brought out Ektachrome 160 which was upgraded to 200. Along the way I experimented with "Brand X" films with "Brand Y" processing (what railfan didn't?), and most of those slides have faded. I also found slides taken with Ektachrome film, but not processed by Kodak have tended to fade, and it seems slides taken with Ektachrome film, and processed by Kodak their images are still stable. What experience hav e the rest of you had with Ektachrome film processing?

I switched to Kodachrome 200 when it first came on the market in 1987, and I have used it ever since. It is a warm film so it tends to accentuate the red end of the color spectrum especially at sunset, but I like it.

How much longer Kodak will continue to produce any slide film much less process it is anybody's guess, but I think the day will not be too far off when slide film will be hard to get. The same thing happened to movie film when the camcorders came in even though they were still expensive. In the meantime don't throw away your Carousel Slide projectors.

[cherokee woman]

Know it's been posted/replied to before, but HOW do we get our pictures posted on this
site? i.e., say we have a picture in our MY PICTURES file that we want to share.

[cherokee woman]

Know it's been posted/replied to before, but HOW do we get our pictures posted on this
site? i.e., say we have a picture in our MY PICTURES file that we want to share.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Yup Larry, I just bought and hooked up a new HP photo specialty printer, but I haven't played with it yet. This printer holds 3 seperate ink cartridges and has a special gray cartridge for the highest quality prints. It can even take the photos right off any of the four styles of memory cards directly.

If you like slide shows, just burn your favorites to a DVD on your computer, and play the disk on a big screen TV.

Digital still has drawbacks, but they are disappearing fast. I must say that instant review of what I've captured is really nice. I'm able to post photos here, within minutes of the time I walk in the door. Fresh from the rails to the web.[swg]

[mudchicken]

As long as they still make it and process it - will still use it. Film turnaround in Colorado always has been slow. Kodachrome is still best for long term storage. Always considered color print film to be a throwaway item. (AGFA, Echtachrome & Fujifilm were not much better)

Slides scan nicely, much better than film on paper...

Hope Parsons, KS has better luck with this outfit holding jobs as opposed to the MKT shops.[zzz][zzz][zzz]

[tree68]

The film business will probably never go completely away, but digital is probably going to wipe out the "consumer" use of film. As Big Boy's examples show, the quality is already there for the average photographer. You can print out a pretty nice 8x10 on your inkjet of anything you actually want to hold in your hand.

Most newpapers have eschewed film for digital - a reporter/photog can dial in and send an image from anywhere....

I have a little digital I spent all of $40 on a while back - it takes tiny pictures, but would be a great plaything for kids - they can shoot, download, massacre the image on the computer, clear the camera, and start all over again.

There is substantial discussion about the durability of digital images. CDs can and do deteriorate, hard drives fail, etc, etc. Of course, negatives and slides can go to h***, too.

I shoot almost all digital now, but I'm not interested in archiving what I shoot. If I were, I'd probably be shooting slides alongside the digitals.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Yeah, the times they are a changin.[:(]

On the bright side, look at the color. These were taken with a simple 3.1 Megapixil Kodak digital.[8D]

[locomutt]

I agree,but am not sure we have worry "right" now.

Paul Simon might be tho.[:)]

And I'll give up my slide projector,and slides;when they........................ Well you know![:p]

[Trainnut484]

I just read today's trains.com article about the sale of Kodak's last processing warehouse in NJ, and future processing will come out of a contractor's place in Parsons, Kansas. It saddens me a little because I have enjoyed shooting train pictures with Kodachrome. My preference was the 64 and 100 film speed types.

Does anyone still use Kodachrome in this day and age? Is anyone pitching their slide projectors for digital goodies?

I think slides still have a place in railroad photography.

Take care,

Russell