139 replies to this topic

[bradbury west]

End of an era;
http://www.telegraph...es-aged-75.html
Roger Lund

[kayemod]

Probably the best transparency film of all in many respects, though it was always a mystery to me that they persevered with those awful card mounts, I never owned a projector that they wouldn't jam in, even an otherwise excellent Kodak Carousel. A unique process of course, and I know that one of the main selling points was longevity, but in my experience, most 'lesser' slide films were very nearly as good as long as you stored them properly. I've still got many hundreds of slides that are anything up to 40 years old, I started very young of course, mostly Ektachrome and Agfa as well as card-mount Kodachromes, and while the Ks seem to have become slightly warmer with the years, there's very little visible deterioration in any of the others either, and in any case, these things are easy to correct when digitising them. I'm slowly working through my collection, largely driven by a wife who is anxious to reclaim the top half of one of our wardrobes, but a recent 'upgrade' from XP to Windows 7 has brought things to a halt, which I hope will only be a temporary one. My wonderful Nikon Coolscan won't function on a 64bit system, and apparently Nikon who make great play of retaining the same basic lens mount throughout most of their history, are refusing to offer a software upgrade to their faithful customers. While there are Internet suggestions of fixes, we're still looking for one that my IT expert is happy with.

RIP Kodachrome.

[Terry Walker]

What a shame - even if inevitable. I've scanned some marvellous Kodachrome 64 slides, still as crisply colourful as new. I took one of the last colour pics of the old Albany Whaling Station when it was still in use - on the flensing deck, phew what a smell, and the slide is still perfect after 50 years.

I know what you mean about Windows bloody 7. It won't talk to my Epson perfection 2400, which will scan up to 120 roll film negs and transparencies. And the "reasonably priced" (thanks Mr Clarkson) scanners which deal with slides are now all 35 mm only.

So I still have my previous PC plugged into the scanner, using XP.

Vale Kodachrome.

[RTH]

Wow this seems to have happened rather quicker than you might have thought.

[kayemod]

On the subject of longevity, how many different digital storage systems has Kodachrome outlasted?

[Graham Gauld]

Very sad even though I moved to digital a few years ago. As has been said Kodachrome was the best in my opinion. OK it was a bit slower than others that came along but it was the best. I have attached a photo I took of the Ferrari 355S on test at Modena Autodrome fifty three years ago just before the car was taken to the boat to sail to Venezuela for the final round of the World Sports Car Championship. The car, today owned by Pierre Bardinon, finished second in the race behind its sister 335S, now owned by Peter Sachs and gave Ferrari the championship.
Like all of us taking photos back then, and as now, we were always on the lookout for something new. In 1959 for example Henry Manney and I tried out the sensational 400ASA Anscochrome but found it dull and very grainy. I then moved to Ektachrome which I loved until Fujichrome came along and I drifted out of film with a barrowload of Fujichrome film.
Today I still yearn for the depth of colour and quality of Kodachrome and come to think of it I don't know why I ever bothered to change. Probably the film speed at the time was the problem



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[h4887]

Just had to hear this again...

[Marc Sproule]

I have roughly 75k images in my racing archive, about half of which are color transparencies. A vast majority of the color is KR, the first ones taken in '74. They all still look like the day I got them back from Kodak.

Some day I will have all the good ones scanned and available to see.

Long live KR!

http://www.flickr.co...s/46681980@N03/

[RA Historian]

I have to second all the above comments. I started shooting color transparencies in 1960, and was told by the photo store guy that Ektachrome was the film to use since it was designed for action photography. That is what I was told. So for the next several years I mostly shot Ektachrome, with the occasional Kodachrome and even more occasional Anscochrome mixed in.

Bear in mind that the overriding factor in my film and developing decisions of the day was that I was a schoolboy with a very empty pocket. I bought whatever was cheapest on the day.

So what happened over the years? The Kodachrome remains as bright and vivid as the day it was developed, while the Ektachrome fully lived up to the term "transparency". Those Ektachrome slides that were not practically clear were a bright shade of red. Fortunately, Nikon came to the rescue. In 2006 I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon Coolscan V slide scanner. Over the past four plus years I have been very busy scanning my slides into digital. (Aside; of course I am backing them up onto two external hard drives plus DVDs.) The Nikon Coolscan was absolutely remarkable in that all those washed out, faded, red, virtually destroyed Ektachrome slides were brought back to life, in the original colors. I must say that I was, and remain, amazed at just how well it worked. I recommend the scanner to anybody. In fact some of those almost worthless slides have since appeared in a few books, including a few in Willem Oosthoeck's excellent Maserati T-61 book, and I daresay that one could never guess what pitiful state they were in before I restored them with the Nikon Coolscan.

I also tried a few rolls of GAF ASA 400 back then, but as Graham points out, the results were dark and very grainy, so I never used it again. From around 1980 on all I used was Fujichrome, about which I have no complaints. Besides, buying Fujichrome by the case was a lot cheaper than the going Kodachrome prices of the day.

But this is about Kodachrome, isn't it? I guess what I am saying is that the Kodachrome I used has stood up very well, and then as now the color reproduction is the best of any film with which I worked.

Having said all that, I am still somewhat amazed at all the changes in the photography game over the past 20 years. I never would have thought that Kodachrome would go away.
Tom

[Graham Gauld]

I have to second all the above comments. I started shooting color transparencies in 1960, and was told by the photo store guy that Ektachrome was the film to use since it was designed for action photography. That is what I was told. So for the next several years I mostly shot Ektachrome, with the occasional Kodachrome and even more occasional Anscochrome mixed in.

Bear in mind that the overriding factor in my film and developing decisions of the day was that I was a schoolboy with a very empty pocket. I bought whatever was cheapest on the day.

So what happened over the years? The Kodachrome remains as bright and vivid as the day it was developed, while the Ektachrome fully lived up to the term "transparency". Those Ektachrome slides that were not practically clear were a bright shade of red. Fortunately, Nikon came to the rescue. In 2006 I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon Coolscan V slide scanner. Over the past four plus years I have been very busy scanning my slides into digital. (Aside; of course I am backing them up onto two external hard drives plus DVDs.) The Nikon Coolscan was absolutely remarkable in that all those washed out, faded, red, virtually destroyed Ektachrome slides were brought back to life, in the original colors. I must say that I was, and remain, amazed at just how well it worked. I recommend the scanner to anybody. In fact some of those almost worthless slides have since appeared in a few books, including a few in Willem Oosthoeck's excellent Maserati T-61 book, and I daresay that one could never guess what pitiful state they were in before I restored them with the Nikon Coolscan.

I also tried a few rolls of GAF ASA 400 back then, but as Graham points out, the results were dark and very grainy, so I never used it again. From around 1980 on all I used was Fujichrome, about which I have no complaints. Besides, buying Fujichrome by the case was a lot cheaper than the going Kodachrome prices of the day.

But this is about Kodachrome, isn't it? I guess what I am saying is that the Kodachrome I used has stood up very well, and then as now the color reproduction is the best of any film with which I worked.

Having said all that, I am still somewhat amazed at all the changes in the photography game over the past 20 years. I never would have thought that Kodachrome would go away.
Tom

Glad you liked your Nikon Coolscan. I am about to put my one on E-bay next week

[Alan Cox]

A sad day, but I suppose we are all to blame in being seduced by digital technology. If we had carried on using it in preference, it might still be viable. Like Tom, I tried Ektachrome and GAF 400 but the results were generally washed out in comparison to Kodachrome. Like everyone else here, I still love the colours that Kodachrome produced and while my earliest slides are only from the 1960s they are still gloriously bright and fresh. Cost was the killer, though, for impecunious amateurs when digital came along.

I know what you mean about Windows bloody 7. It won't talk to my Epson perfection 2400, which will scan up to 120 roll film negs and transparencies.
So I still have my previous PC plugged into the scanner, using XP.

Me too, Terry. Windows 7 won't associate with my trusty Hewlett Packard scanner, so it is still connected to the old PC.

[RA Historian]

Glad you liked your Nikon Coolscan. I am about to put my one on E-bay next week

A commission for my endorsement?
Tom

[kayemod]

Glad you liked your Nikon Coolscan. I am about to put my one on E-bay next week

From one or two Coolscans I've noticed on there recently, you could end up getting more than you originally paid for it.

On Tom's point, he's right about Kodachromes lasting well. Maybe I've been lucky though, many of my old slides are Agfa 100, which was my choice for landscale work, but they and my Ektachrome 200s are virtually as good as the day I took them, must be down to how they've been stored.

[PCC]

I'm sorry to see the passing of Kodachrome, which I used for many years. That said, my experience with it was not always happy. I used it in a lot of rather dark architectural interiors, and I found that with exposure times over one second its colour started to shift towards green; up to about ten seconds this could be countered with a 10R filter, but after that it was out of control (not really an issue in sports photography). I eventually shifted to Fuji Provia, and found that even with exposure times measured in minutes there was no colour shift and no significant reciprocity failure. Also, I found that with regular projection, Kodachrome did indeed fade quite dramatically, although in storage it lasted better than any other colour film.

But in its day it was the best, and getting back a bundle of processed Kodachrome from the lab was always an experience to savour. So long, Kodachrome.

[jj2728]

I have roughly 75k images in my racing archive, about half of which are color transparencies. A vast majority of the color is KR, the first ones taken in '74. They all still look like the day I got them back from Kodak.

Some day I will have all the good ones scanned and available to see.

Long live KR!

http://www.flickr.co...s/46681980@N03/

My dad has them going back to 1951, a few of which I've posted around here somewhere, and they still look as crisp and clean as the day they were taken. Now if only I could find his slides from the early post-war Indy 500s........

[fbarrett]

Kodachrome -- the standard against which all other color film was judged!

From 1955 to about 1982, I shot black and white almost exclusively (Plus X or Ilford, self-processed), but when I switched to color, I started with Kodachrome. For more speed, I then went to Ektachrome, then when Fuji Velvia came along, with its warm color and fine grain, that became my new favorite, but Kodachrome (if somewhat contrasty and lacking shadow detail) was always the basis for comparison. Too bad Kodak couldn't comply with Simon & Garfunkel's plea, "Please don't take my Kodachrome away!"

Frank

[kayemod]

Kodachrome -- the standard against which all other color film was judged!

Too bad Kodak couldn't comply with Simon & Garfunkel's plea, "Please don't take my Kodachrome away!"

Frank

Can't let that one slide past, that was a Garfunkel-less Paul Simon on his first solo album, the title of the song was Kodachrome of course. I liked that song enough to play it to death, but had to shut my ears when he got to the line anout his "Nie-kon camera". It's completely the wrong pronunciation, there are no vowels like that in Japanese, though sadly it's the one that most Americans use.

[RStock]

Can't let that one slide past, that was a Garfunkel-less Paul Simon on his first solo album, the title of the song was Kodachrome of course. I liked that song enough to play it to death, but had to shut my ears when he got to the line anout his "Nie-kon camera". It's completely the wrong pronunciation, there are no vowels like that in Japanese, though sadly it's the one that most Americans use.

Corrupting language is a national pastime here in the states. It's what we do well.

Taking this off topic a bit, since the photographers will more than likely be checking this thread, it might be a good place to ask. I recently aquired a used (of course) Canon T50. It was produced before all the electronic gizmos were put on them, which I'm no good at operating. But as one looking to get started in photography, I'd like a learned opinion as to the worth of this particular camera. It seems a good starter for a novice such as myself. My main question is, is it worth investing in some lenses? I'm interested in a telephoto lens and possibly a few more. Any thoughts or advice before I invest?

[Tony Matthews]

. It seems a good starter for a novice such as myself. My main question is, is it worth investing in some lenses? I'm interested in a telephoto lens and possibly a few more. Any thoughts or advice before I invest?

Worth it if you are keen to try it - lenses for that body must be as cheap as chips now, although I admit I haven't checked. Canon have, unlike Nikon, changed their lens mount at least once, maybe more, so the early lenses have limited use. I can use positively ancient Nikkors on a modern Nikon body, and although few modes are available, they work. Check the second hand dealers. Film aint dead yet...

[RA Historian]

my Ektachrome 200s are virtually as good as the day I took them, must be down to how they've been stored.

Also, I found that with regular projection, Kodachrome did indeed fade quite dramatically, although in storage it lasted better than any other colour film.

Both interesting points. My Ektachrome faded badly, but I stored those slides right with all the others, chronologically in roto-trays. So I don't think my Ektachrome problems were a result of that. On the other hand, I did view my early slides via a projector frequently in the early years. Maybe that affected the Ektachrome rather than the Kodachrome. One other reason which I consider is that the Kodachrome was always processed in a Kodak lab, whereas the Ektachrome and others were always processed through a local lab. Money considerations back then, as I mentioned above. So it seems a possibility to me that the quality of processing on non-Kodachrome film back in the '60s was significantly inferior to that of the Kodak lab.

As an aside, I have a few dozen color slides taken by my godfather of the family, etc., from well back in the 1940s. They were shot on Kodachrome, and the color remains vivid.

Tom

[Frank S]

Sheddng a tear on Kodachrome's last day:

http://www.nytimes.c...l...s&emc=tha23

http://lens.blogs.ny...a...s&emc=tha23

It was great fun but it was just one of those things.


From my first roll of Kodachrome, November 1956, Mamie Van Doren visits our tech-school squadron in Texas; I looked at the original this week, and it is a bit dusty, but otherwise good as new:



I'm also attempting to recover from a Coolscan/Neekon victimization related to Windows7. Try to install NeekonScan on a new machine, you are immediately advised it ain't gonna go, and the screen suggests VueScan and another the name of which I've forgotten (SilverFast?), but whose price - per scanner - is $160 US. VueScan is forty bucks, seems to have the potential to work right, and will accept input from however many scanners you can hook up, including my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo that does transparencies and 120 film in addition to reflective materials.

Thousands and thousands of happy CoolScan/NeekonScan/XP users out here and we get shunted off into the ankle-deep muck surrounding a new tool. Grrr.

Have you seen the prices being asked for Neekon scanners? Barbarous. Accessories are worse yet.


It was great fun...

[Tony Matthews]

From my first roll of Kodachrome, November 1956, Mamie Van Doren visits our tech-school squadron in Texas; I looked at the original this week, and it is a bit dusty, but otherwise good as new:




It was great fun...

Very nice photo, Frank.

[Marc Sproule]

I'm using a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED in conjunction with my Mac Mini. I get good results from it but open all my images in photoshop. Sometimes they need a little work, sometimes not.

I'm quite satisfied the results. My only "complaint" is that it won't handle larger film. I have a fair amount of images from the Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya 645 that I used at times. I'll have to pay to have that stuff scanned.

And Frank.....

What was Ms. Van Doren's purpose for visiting your tech-school squadron?

Inquiring minds just gotta know!!

[RStock]

Worth it if you are keen to try it - lenses for that body must be as cheap as chips now, although I admit I haven't checked. Canon have, unlike Nikon, changed their lens mount at least once, maybe more, so the early lenses have limited use. I can use positively ancient Nikkors on a modern Nikon body, and although few modes are available, they work. Check the second hand dealers. Film aint dead yet...

I've done some checking and lenses are cheap. Just a few basic ones are all I need. Thanks for the reply.

[Frank S]

...

And Frank.....

What was Ms. Van Doren's purpose for visiting your tech-school squadron?

Inquiring minds just gotta know!!

I understood she was there to congratulate the Sheppard Air Force Base "Airman of the Month", and she did pose with him. I doubt that was the entire reason, as it was either Thanksgiving day or one of the two days following. She must have been in the area for some other reason and her publicist had to find something for her to do for a line in local press. She surely won a few life-long fans that day. I've said her motives were obvious and at the same time obscure.

Somewhere out there is a photo of me with my arm around her; the organizers allowed us "serious photographers" into the office for some more intimate shots. Unfortunately at that point I was out of film and never saw the image made with someone else's camera.

[PCC]

Corrupting language is a national pastime here in the states. It's what we do well.

Not just Americans. I believe we've already had a discussion about how the English pronounce things like 'Reims'. And then there are places like 'Beaulieu' and 'Beaumaris'....

[stevewf1]

Is it time to dust off the checkbook, dip into that retirement fund and go with digital photography?

I gave up film (and photography) around 1994. 10 years later, I picked up a little 3MP Canon digital and was transformed into the digital world. Now, I've graduated to a "cheap" Canon digital SLR (T2i) and I'm impressed with the results I get.

Back in the day, I always liked Kodachrome, but I had to. It was the "best" hobbyist film available at the time. At least in the 35mm form. But as I've migrated to digital and look back at some of those slides, I've discovered that I don't like the "look" of Kodachrome anymore. Vibrant rich colors, yes. But not really "faithful" in its reproduction.

Today, I think digital is better, but that's just me...

(Uh-Oh)

[kayemod]

I'm also attempting to recover from a Coolscan/Neekon victimization related to Windows7.

As I said earlier, my IT guy is looking for a safe, hopefully free, fix for this. He thinks it can be done from a 32bit Vista version, but I'll let you know if he finds anything.

On Japanese pronunciation, they don't have long vowels, only short ones, so it's N-I-kon, but we do similar things to lots of their words, only a non-speaker would say Toy-OH-ta or Os-AH-ka. A friend once had to book a trip to that fine city, he kept pronouncing it O-SAH-ka as most of us do, and couldn't figure out why no-one could understand where he was trying to get to, it wasn't far away. One taxi driver told him it was on the northern island of Hokkaido, probably the Kobe version of, "I'm not going south of the river at this time of night".

[elansprint72]

Ha! I told you so! Thet thar Colour photography thang would never catch on. Good riddance.

I've just bought a 60s Nikon F and I'm developing my own B&W film again.

[elansprint72]

................. I've discovered that I don't like the "look" of Kodachrome anymore. Vibrant rich colors, yes. But not really "faithful" in its reproduction.

Today, I think digital is better, but that's just me...

(Uh-Oh)

I'm with you; grass was never blue-green, white folks never were that shade of orange. I had a major bust-up with a publisher who demanded colour photos from races; I protested that film and colour printing were not up to the job of recording what stuff actually looked like on the day. After a bit of a stand-off, they decided it was better to print the action, rather than than the flower-power; of course I was washed away by the tide, eventually.

[GreenMachine]

As I said earlier, my IT guy is looking for a safe, hopefully free, fix for this. He thinks it can be done from a 32bit Vista version, but I'll let you know if he finds anything.

I have a Coolscan, and finished my slides before I got the new 64bit computer. However I have kept my old one, a celeron powered (?!) HP laptop, for other reasons - to which I added another reason when I discovered the Nikon software problem. I suggest that the simplest solution is to buy a laptop that will run it, and use it just to scan the slides - unless you have plenty of time. After scanning, I do the restoration on the new computer using things like Lightroom. The only exception is I find the Nikon software to be good for scratches, but YMMV.

I was going to sell my Coolscan the same place I got it (fleabay), but I reckon there are some more slides I haven't found yet ...

[Odseybod]

I'm also attempting to recover from a Coolscan/Neekon victimization related to Windows7. Try to install NeekonScan on a new machine, you are immediately advised it ain't gonna go, and the screen suggests VueScan and another the name of which I've forgotten (SilverFast?), but whose price - per scanner - is $160 US. VueScan is forty bucks, seems to have the potential to work right, and will accept input from however many scanners you can hook up, including my Epson Perfection 4870 Photo that does transparencies and 120 film in addition to reflective materials.

I had the same problem with my Canon 4000US scanner not talking to 64 bit Windows 7, and Canon apparently seeing no need to produce an updated driver to cope. VueScan does the job seamlessly - and I think once you've paid the reasonable price, the same download fits any scanner it finds on your system (certainly talks to my Canon flatbed scanenr if required). Before those Neekon Coolscans go onto the Bay, might be worth trying the (free) trial download of VueScan from www.hamrick.com.

Incidentally I think Win 7 is a lot more tolerant of older technology than Vista ever was, but this ain't the place for opening that particular can of worms.

[Bob Riebe]

Corrupting language is a national pastime here in the states. It's what we do well.

Taking this off topic a bit, since the photographers will more than likely be checking this thread, it might be a good place to ask. I recently aquired a used (of course) Canon T50. It was produced before all the electronic gizmos were put on them, which I'm no good at operating. But as one looking to get started in photography, I'd like a learned opinion as to the worth of this particular camera. It seems a good starter for a novice such as myself. My main question is, is it worth investing in some lenses? I'm interested in a telephoto lens and possibly a few more. Any thoughts or advice before I invest?

I have three Canon F-1 cameras. Your pictures will be as good as the value of your lenses, you get what you pay for. There are, or were, some lower priced lenses that performed amazingly above average, that now can be had for ten to twenty bucks, buy one has to know what to look for.

The past two years film camera prices have become a divided class, in part to Japanese collectors and pros to semi-pros who still use film. Cheap to average cameras, and lenses, are dirt cheap, to give-aways, top line are now going back up, fast, at least on Ebay, but you can find real bargains if you look.
Your non-top-line Canon, on average, if you use it and do not treat it as a toy, will work well but if it breaks, it is usually garbage, unless you know a repairman real well.

[elansprint72]

Corrupting language is a national pastime here in the states. It's what we do well.

Taking this off topic a bit, since the photographers will more than likely be checking this thread, it might be a good place to ask. I recently aquired a used (of course) Canon T50. It was produced before all the electronic gizmos were put on them, which I'm no good at operating. But as one looking to get started in photography, I'd like a learned opinion as to the worth of this particular camera. It seems a good starter for a novice such as myself. My main question is, is it worth investing in some lenses? I'm interested in a telephoto lens and possibly a few more. Any thoughts or advice before I invest?

I'm a little puzzled why a newcomer to photography would want to start with film; fewer and fewer places seem capable of processing it and the costs are rising, unless you develop your own Black and White. OK so old film cameras and lenses might be cheap (there is a T50 on UK e-Bay for less than the price of the postage!) but the aggravation of getting the films processed and scanned, or printed does not seem worth it for a beginner, imho.

Far better to get a modern Digi-SLR and a zoom lens, or lenses, the electronic "gizmos" make it easier not harder; I do most of my motor-sports photography with Nikon D700 using "auto-everything" like a point and shoot and the results are none too shabby(!).

I've just started tinkering with B&W film again but I already have all the gear and (apart from the lost brain cells!) the experience gained over 20 yrs before I abandoned film 15 years ago.

[elansprint72]

I have three Canon F-1 cameras. Your pictures will be as good as the value of your lenses, you get what you pay for. There are, or were, some lower priced lenses that performed amazingly above average, that now can be had for ten to twenty bucks, buy one has to know what to look for.

The past two years film camera prices have become a divided class, in part to Japanese collectors and pros to semi-pros who still use film. Cheap to average cameras, and lenses, are dirt cheap, to give-aways, top line are now going back up, fast, at least on Ebay, but you can find real bargains if you look.
Your non-top-line Canon, on average, if you use it and do not treat it as a toy, will work well but if it breaks, it is usually garbage, unless you know a repairman real well.

I agree with most of what you say but, if we are talking about motor sports photographers, I'm unaware of any "pros" who shoot with film these days. Outside of the sport only one "pro" guy I know uses film, for high-end wedding work (really creative work, not the usual happy-snappy stuff).

You are spot-on re rising collector prices but the equipment has to be mint; "used" top-end stuff is on the rise too as a result of the collector prices.

[Tony Matthews]

'Boots the Chemist' still sells, processes, prints and burns film to CD, the latter at fairly low resolution. How much longer they will continue to do so remains to be seen, but I have bought C41 Kodak B&W film, still a few frames to go! I too have a D700, 14-24, 24-70 and 80-200 zooms, but I do not feel nearly as involved as I did when I had my darkroom, and I hope to rectify this in the near future and start again! Still got all my film bodies and lenses, plus a Pentax 67, now being used by my son who is studying photography at Brighton, where film is a major part of the curriculum - perhaps nobody has told the tutors...

[arttidesco]

I'm a little puzzled why a newcomer to photography would want to start with film; fewer and fewer places seem capable of processing it and the costs are rising, unless you develop your own Black and White. OK so old film cameras and lenses might be cheap (there is a T50 on UK e-Bay for less than the price of the postage!) but the aggravation of getting the films processed and scanned, or printed does not seem worth it for a beginner, imho.

IMHO having a good understanding of how the wet process works is a good grounding on how to make the best of digital photography.

Once one has taken the time to make some photograms and knock out a couple of test films working through the aperture options and exposure options with an 35 mm SLR I believe one has a good understanding of how to set up digital SLR to one's liking.

I agree it's not absolutely essential but during workshops I have run students really enjoyed learning the wet process and seem to come away with a far better understanding of what to do when automatic everything point and shoot does not come up with the results they want.

Sad to hear Kodachrome has bitten the dust but Velvia 50 disappeared around 2002 and in 2008 it came back again.

[retriever]

As this discussion has mentioned scanners I currently use a Minolta Dimage Multi PRO scanner with Silverfast software. At present I am scanning in thousands of b&W negatives of commercial vehicles from the Arthur Ingram / Roger Kenney / Philip Hine collection (I will post some more of these soon on the Commercial Nostalgia Forum.) To assist me overcome the vagaries of scanning b&w I also use the diffused plastic scanning glass inserts once sold by Scanhancer for those who use this scanner. These somehow help produce a better image than without.

The is really a marvellous machine and cost me around £2000 when I purchased it some 6-7 years ago and has served me well in my publishing business. The machine, like most decent scanners, is no longer available with Minolta having moved out of the market - I think they were bought by Sony, but I may be wrong. Worse than that replacement scanning light bulbs are not available anywhere and once mine goes then that is it. There is a worldwide forum for the followers of this Minolta machine and so far no one has turned up any examples.

As regards computer operating software I remain working with XP and will stay with it as long as possible. I have experienced Vista which came with my laptop and that is appalling. No doubt my scanner would not work with the current Windows product and frankly I am too old to start learning more 'bells and whistles'.

I dread the day when my Minolta gives up the ghost as it does not seem that there is anything comparable currently available. If those amongst you can offer guidance as to a decent replacement it would be appreciated.


Robin Pearson
Nynehead Books/Roundoak Publishing

[Bob Riebe]

I'm a little puzzled why a newcomer to photography would want to start with film; fewer and fewer places seem capable of processing it and the costs are rising, unless you develop your own Black and White. OK so old film cameras and lenses might be cheap (there is a T50 on UK e-Bay for less than the price of the postage!) but the aggravation of getting the films processed and scanned, or printed does not seem worth it for a beginner, imho.

Far better to get a modern Digi-SLR and a zoom lens, or lenses, the electronic "gizmos" make it easier not harder; I do most of my motor-sports photography with Nikon D700 using "auto-everything" like a point and shoot and the results are none too shabby(!).

I've just started tinkering with B&W film again but I already have all the gear and (apart from the lost brain cells!) the experience gained over 20 yrs before I abandoned film 15 years ago.

If one does not know the basics of true photography, not electronic digital copy approximation, one does not know how to take photographs. One will not, if confronted with the "need" for a picture, that auto everything will not pick-up, have the faintest idea of how to possibly be able to get a picture.
The old box and or folding cameras of the up to fifties years, made anyone who wanted to take pictures have at LEAST a basic knowledge of how to take pictures. I am amazed at how capable some "family" photographers were at over-coming obstacles to get a photograph.

ASA at f:16, was burned into my head decades ago and that is a far handier system than the old box and Brownie shooters had.

Nikon still makes two film cameras, a basic, no motor drive, photo-class FM10, and the F6.
There is rumor that a F7, may be in the future.

I also have Nikon and Canon auto wonders, but it took me awhile, (I could not figure out why I could not focus the auto-focus lens (i.e. in and out of focus till I was satisfied) till I stopped and made the grey-matter work long enough to remember it was AUTOMATICALLY being focused a lot faster than my fingers ever did it.

If one looks, something computers are a god-send for, there are still plenty, in the U.S., places to get film work done, including non-scan prints.

[Frank S]

I believe photography is a bit like motor racing: there is some thinking and learning that can be done beforehand, and certain experiences are useful, but the most powerful tool for perfecting one's craft/performance is doing it. With digital cameras, seat time is a great deal less expensive and more accessible, and the near-instant feedback possible falls in line with learning principles better than even the quickest turnaround between exposure and result in chemical photography.

I don't see enough compensation for the value of my Canon A-1 and F-1N and raft of lenses to make it likely I'll be selling them soon.

Did I show you the recently re-discovered Kodachrome shot of (what may be) the prototype Shelby 1967 Trans-Am notchback Mustang? Carlsbad Raceway, June 1983, a San Diego Region SCCA Solo event (time trial in some dialects). Ted Gildred is the driver name on the door.

Edited by Frank S, 05 January 2011 - 00:08.

[RStock]

I'm a little puzzled why a newcomer to photography would want to start with film;

Because I'm a dinosaur who refuses to change. A computer is my sole recognition of the modern world.

fewer and fewer places seem capable of processing it and the costs are rising, unless you develop your own Black and White.

It might be different where you are, but here photo processing sites are readily available. I might someday consider developing my own. In another life I used to develope X-rays, so I would be familiar with the process.

OK so old film cameras and lenses might be cheap (there is a T50 on UK e-Bay for less than the price of the postage!) but the aggravation of getting the films processed and scanned, or printed does not seem worth it for a beginner, imho.

Far better to get a modern Digi-SLR and a zoom lens, or lenses, the electronic "gizmos" make it easier not harder; I do most of my motor-sports photography with Nikon D700 using "auto-everything" like a point and shoot and the results are none too shabby(!).

I've just started tinkering with B&W film again but I already have all the gear and (apart from the lost brain cells!) the experience gained over 20 yrs before I abandoned film 15 years ago.

Thank you, and everyone else, for the advice. This will be my first step up from point and click cameras. This will be nothing but a hobby for me, so I don't look to invest much money. I already have the Canon so I figure I might as well give it a try. I might move on to digital some day however, especially if I'm not satisfied with the results I get.

Edited by REDARMYSOJA, 05 January 2011 - 04:28.

[stevewf1]

A downside of digital (the SLRs) is the initial cost. I recently purchased a Canon T2i with the 18-55 kit lens plus a Canon 70-300 lens. Add to that a battery grip, a second battery and just a few accessories and everything totaled to about $1,800. And all of that is way down there on the cheap side of the digital SLR scale...

Edited by stevewf1, 05 January 2011 - 08:24.

[arttidesco]

A downside of digital (the SLRs) is the initial cost. I recently purchased a Canon T2i with the 18-55 kit lens plus a Canon 70-300 lens. Add to that a battery grip, a second battery and just a few accessories and everything totaled to about $1,800. And all of that is way down there on the cheap side of the digital SLR scale...

This has been the downside of photography all along, the upside with digital though as someone else has observed is seat time, once you have spent the money you can take tens of thousands of pics relatively cheaply for the price of recharging the batteries :-)

[kayemod]

A downside of digital (the SLRs) is the initial cost.

Not really, film cameras were sold at comparable prices, probably higher in real terms in fact, but the biggest factor with digital costs is depreciation. I went onto grown-up cameras with a Nikon FM2 around 30 years ago. I gradually moved up the range over the years, ending up with a Nikon F4, the body only cost me about £1100 back in the late 80s. In my opinion that F4 just about the best thing of its kind ever produced, and I still have it, for quality and general handling and usability, it's never been surpassed. Every time I changed, I was able to do so at fairly modest expense, sale or PX values of the old ones hadn't dropped very much, but it's very different today. My first digital camera was a Nikon D70, subsequently changed for a D80 and currently a D300. I sold the first two on eBay, and got reasonable prices for them, but there was a significant extra outlay each time, much more than was the case in olden times with a Nikon F, F2 or F3. It's the technology of course, there's a new breed of 'photographers' who are fixated with pixel count and Photoshop. In the real world, pixel count is far less important that advertisers and retailers would have you believe, but that's what the new breed have been convinced that they want and even need. Where photo quality is concerned, the competence of a camera's sensor and its data processing ability are infinitely more important than pixel count, but consumers have been brainwashed to the extent that something like a Nikon D70, or of course the Canon equivalent, are worth little today in sale or trade-in terms, though even with a relatively modest pixel count, they'll provide infinitely better results than today's expensive mega-pixel so-called 'bridge cameras' and the higher range compacts. On using film, BW especially, that's the very best way to learn what photography is really about. You need a darkroom, it isn't cheap, and there's an awful lot to learn, but few things in life can equal the satisfaction of seeing a monochrome print come to life before you as you gently rock the dish, you can really feel that you've truly created something worthwhile and even unique.

[uffen]

I use both digital and film cameras. The more I use digital the more I like film.
Sure you can shoot digital until the cows come home and it will cost you little. But you also have little when you're done. Looking at photos on a computer screen is entirely unsatisfying in my view. You still need to get them printed.
Both have their places but the pluses of digital are over sold.

Kodachrome? Love it, miss it already.

[elansprint72]

A downside of digital (the SLRs) is the initial cost. I recently purchased a Canon T2i with the 18-55 kit lens plus a Canon 70-300 lens. Add to that a battery grip, a second battery and just a few accessories and everything totaled to about $1,800. And all of that is way down there on the cheap side of the digital SLR scale...

.... and I've just spent 275 quid (429 US$) on a Fuji HS10, fixed zoom lens (looks like a small SLR), photos are more than acceptable, even by my standards. The lens has a 30x zoom ratio which runs from 24mm-720(!)mm (35mm equiv). Batteries are rechargeable standard AA cells, two sets plus charger 20 quid. Cheapo filter to keep muck off the lens- 3 quid. Sorted!

[kayemod]

.... and I've just spent 275 quid... The lens has a 30x zoom ratio which runs from 24mm-720(!)mm (35mm equiv).

We've seen some of your work, so I realise you aren't being entirely serious, but the upper range of that zoom (how miniscule is the aperture?) is utterly, utterly, utterly useless for all practical purposes if you're after quality results, as I'm sure you'd agree, and have you factored the extra cost of a decent tripod into your sums? As well as pixel count, I'm baffled by some of the lenses that people are convinced they need by both advertisers and retailers, decently large apertures make for far more usable and effective lenses, though they are of course both heavy and expensive. In my film days, I usually had an f2.8 35-70 Nikkor on my beloved F4, and rarely felt the need for anything much longer, just what kind of photography would you need a cheap and cheerful (no offence intended!) digital device with such a ridiculous zoom on it? Remember that famous quote by Robert Capa, "If your pictures aren't good enough, then you aren't close enough", and fellow Magnum snapper Henri Cartier-Bresson, did almost all of his work with 35mm & 50mm lenses on his Leicas. These two were among the two greatest photographers that the world has ever seen, some of H C-B's work in particular is sheer artistic genius.

[Odseybod]

We've seen some of your work, so I realise you aren't being entirely serious, but the upper range of that zoom (how miniscule is the aperture?) is utterly, utterly, utterly useless for all practical purposes if you're after quality results, as I'm sure you'd agree, and have you factored the extra cost of a decent tripod into your sums? As well as pixel count, I'm baffled by some of the lenses that people are convinced they need by both advertisers and retailers, decently large apertures make for far more usable and effective lenses, though they are of course both heavy and expensive. In my film days, I usually had an f2.8 35-70 Nikkor on my beloved F4, and rarely felt the need for anything much longer, just what kind of photography would you need a cheap and cheerful (no offence intended!) digital device with such a ridiculous zoom on it? Remember that famous quote by Robert Capa, "If your pictures aren't good enough, then you aren't close enough", and fellow Magnum snapper Henri Cartier-Bresson, did almost all of his work with 35mm & 50mm lenses on his Leicas. These two were among the two greatest photographers that the world has ever seen, some of H C-B's work in particular is sheer artistic genius.

And in the 50s and 60s, professional motor sport photographers like Geoff Goddard, Maurice Rowe, Ron Easton & Co could get cose enough to the action to fill the frame with at most a 135mm lens, even a 50mm. But the gallant band of marshals would have collective kittens if you tried to stand today in the footprints of these heroes on, say, the inside of Copse at Silverstone. Just not acceptable to Elfin Safety. So you need more glass - in most cases, I'd suggest 300mm is about the minimum, even with a trackside pass. Yet the need for a big max aperture (f/ 2.8 ideally) remains the same, even with the ability to crank up the ISO number without losing too much image quality. Hence the giant cream buckets most have attached to the front of their cameras.

Of course (straying even further away from Kodachrome) the rangefinder Leica wouldn't allow you to attach more than a 135mm lens without involving a cumbersome separate reflex housing, though it took the genius of H.C.-B, Kertesz & Co to make a virtue out of necessity. It was only the arrival of the Neekon as the first SLR rugged enough to stand up to pro use ("The hockey puck that takes great pictures") that longer lenses (and safer distances from racing cars) became an option. End of history rant.

Edited by Odseybod, 05 January 2011 - 19:27.

[Tony Matthews]

Remember that famous quote by Robert Capa, "If your pictures aren't good enough, then you aren't close enough", and fellow Magnum snapper Henri Cartier-Bresson, did almost all of his work with 35mm & 50mm lenses on his Leicas. These two were among the two greatest photographers that the world has ever seen, some of H C-B's work in particular is sheer artistic genius.

One of the most frustrating things about digital camera development is that a new, improved sensor means a new body. In The Old Days a well built film body would go on doing it's job for decades, and any improvement in the 'sensor', i.e. film, was instantly useable. I haven't taken photographs technically better with my F4s or FE2 than I did with my Nikkormat FTn, but later bodies had functions that were very helpful in difficult, 'business' situations. I made the mistake of buying a Nikon Coolpix 6000 for a lot of money, on standby (OFF) the battery lasts 18 days and takes hours to re-charge. The button cell/s in an FE or FM last for years.

[cyrilmac]

To all of the educated and erudite Gentlemen above - "Hear Hear".
Some of the best for and against I've come across without "My Dads bigger than your Dad".
As I returned to the art after a long layoff I found the transition extreme - especially if your not very computer literate.
PS.
Never really liked Kodachrome