Let's be clear about this from the start. I love shooting digital and I wouldn't trade my Canon 5D MkII for a boatload of film.
But, I would like to jump on the nostalgia, "in memoriam" Kodachrome bandwagon. I used it a lot as an amateur in the 70s, when I was trying (at great expense) to figure the whole photography thing out. If you missed the exposure on K25, you had a washed out mess or a contrasty problem.
When I was a newspaper photographer in the 80s, we never used it, unless we were on our own time. The newspaper had no time or place for a film that would take two - three days to process and be returned.
In the early 90s, I received Kodak sponsorship for a book project on Colorado ranches and farms. I think they sent 80 rolls of 64 and 200.
I started shooting assignments for the book division of National Geographic in the 90s. One of the first questions was, "You'll get 200 rolls of film for this assignment, what do you want?" Really? Anything? I played around a bit with 25 and 64, but really loved the Kodachrome 200. I always had my "low light" bodies loaded with 200. Almost always had it in the Leica. And I usually rated it at 400 ISO.
The photos on this post were all shot with it. If they don't look as vibrant as a color slide, blame it on the scanner, not the film.
They really did "take our Kodachrome away." More due to Kodak's stupidity than the marketplace. Or, maybe not.
No comments:
Post a Comment