Kodachrome finally taken away

We all knew it was coming, but it's still sad -- particularly for photographers who loved the medium. Kodak has discontinued the production of Kodachrome film, and Glen E. Friedman, who shot the classic images above and below, laments its death in a blog post right here.

As far as quality products that mean something to me this one ranks above all else, even Apple.

This is like losing your favorite paint brush or camera lens or guitar, forever. Their are others, but none will be the same at all.

Perhaps one day in the future some one will invent a Kodachrome mode in digital photography....

These photos from Glen, featured in several Boing Boing Video episodes this year, were shot on Kodachrome.

[nanuq June 23, 2009 6:43 AM]

Sudden mental picture of die-hard photography buffs hoarding their precious supplies in bank vaults waiting for the price to rise...

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 6:57 AM]

@nanuq They're hoarding them and asking themselves the question Elaine asked herself on Seinfeld: is this image 'sponge-worthy'?

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 7:03 AM]

Momma done took my Kodachrome away!

"When I think back on all the crap I learnt in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all
Though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the walls

Kodachrome, they give us those nice bright colours
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh, yeah!
I got a nikon camera, I love to take photographs
So momma don't take my kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single
Brought 'em all together for one night
I know they'd never match my sweet imagination
Everything looks better in black and white"

--shoutz to Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel, Kodachrome

[MeetingWave June 23, 2009 7:04 AM]

Nanuq- Agreed about the hoarding prediction.

I guess this is creative destruction in the works.

"Kodachrome was the first successfully mass-marketed color still film using a subtractive method, in contrast to earlier additive "screenplate" methods such as Autochrome and Dufaycolor, and remained the oldest brand of color film....was invented in the early 1930s by two professional musicians, Leopold Godowsky, Jr. and Leopold Mannes" (Wiki).

Ironic that it was invented by musicians and will still be immortilized by the Paul Simon song.

[Matt Deckard June 23, 2009 7:05 AM]

But, they give us those nice bright colors!

[usonia June 23, 2009 7:06 AM]

Hahahaha no, but seriously NANUQ: there's 130 rolls in a minifridge in my parents basement. I shall mete it out slowly until it is gone. Partly because it is a bitch to get it processed.
This sort of heartwrenching hoardery is why I prefer to shoot digital.

[reginald June 23, 2009 7:11 AM]

baby don't take

... sorry

[dbarak June 23, 2009 7:13 AM]

For people hoarding Kodachrome, keep in mind there's only ONE lab WORLDWIDE that still processes Kodachrome. It's in Kansas.

I loooooved Kodachrome, and it's really what I used to cut my teeth in photography (back when I still shot). I remember when the 200 speed film came out - it was a huge deal, because before that all they had was 25 and 64. The 25 was nearly grainless, very beautiful. The 200 could be push processed to an equivalent of 400 and I think even 800. The other two might have been pushable too, although there wouldn't have been much reason.

Kodachrome is a very unusual film. It's black and white film, with three different layers of emulsion, each of which is responsible for a different color. The dyes, I believe, are in the film already, but are only activated when the film is processed.

Some of the slower Fujichrome films will probably be the closest thing to Kodachrome.

I'm sad.

[Random Royalty June 23, 2009 7:35 AM]

In the late 70s and early 80s, when I was an assistant to a commercial advertising photographer, the only reversal process that was better than Kodachrome was large format Polaroid 809. But even in the 70s the cost was outrageous ($20 a pop!). This film is still stocked but on the verge of being discontinued.

@Dbarak: While Fuji makes some excellent emulsions, the limitations of the E-6 process when compared to K-14 means it will never, ever come even close.

Also I believe Rocky Mountain Film Labs in Colorado is still processing Kodachrome.

[Snowrunner June 23, 2009 7:37 AM]

Kodachrome is a very unusual film. It's black and white film, with three different layers of emulsion, each of which is responsible for a different color. The dyes, I believe, are in the film already, but are only activated when the film is processed.

No, there are no dyes in the film at all. This is what makes Kodachrome so durable / special.

All print film and modern slide films have the dies embedded in the layers, Kodachrome adds it's dyes during the development process. That's why it is so complicated.

The "plus side" of it is that you can develope the film in normal B&W chemistry and you get some viewable (b&w) images out of it.

I have never tried that and the last 20 rolls I just ordered I am not sure I will... But we will see.

Sad to see it go, there is nothing remotely similar to it on the market, not even the slower Fuji's (though I do like the Sensia).

As for the original article. You can already post process images to look like Kodachrome, but it just isn't the same.

Check out shorpy.com for some good old B&W and Kodachrome glory.

[Andreas June 23, 2009 7:42 AM]

I knew the day would come, but it feels sad. There's something about those Kodachrome colors that's... really hard to define. A bit of magic, perhaps.

[Uncle Geo June 23, 2009 7:48 AM]

Interesting about musicians having a hand in Kodachrome.

The media almost adds it's own desirable flavor to a work of art -i.e. the goal is not a perfect reproduction of reality but one filtered through the particularly pleasing "distortions" of the media.

Musicians still use tube amps. The level of distortion of a signal through tubes is way higher than through transistors but tubes sound mellow because the distortion takes the shape of a good deal of pleasing harmonics.

The few tube factories that exist (no surprise, from current and former Communist countries) owe their success almost entirely to musicians.

In digital audio mixing there are plug in effects that mimic tube amps of every variety. As to whether there will be a digital filter to create a Kodachrome look, I'd expect some soon.

[MeetingWave June 23, 2009 7:56 AM]

What's next to go?

a. All forms of physical digital media (dvds, cds, etc.)

b. One or more well known, never thought would happen "brick & mortor" colleges/universities (e.g. go completely online).

c. other?

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 8:21 AM]

This is terrible. I have a niece who is just starting out as a photographer, and who has professional aspirations. She despises digital, wants to go Old Skool forever. I gave her a roll of Kodachrome - her first - a month ago. Now it will be her last.

I've been searching in vain for a replacement for Kodachrome 25 for years. Stuff was smooth as glass, no grain and of course incredible color.

Progress is defined as something gained, not something lost. :(

[seer June 23, 2009 8:32 AM]

to me, it's not the colors that i will miss (tho i will) - it's the durability of Kodachrome. i have boxes of slides my parents shot in the early 1960's on both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. the Ekta is all heavily shifted to magenta, but the Kodachrome, forty years later, looks perfect.

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 10:18 AM]

Kodachrome photoshop action:
http://homepage.mac.com/pbize1/Scripts/PSAK200.html

I used to shoot Kodachrome - I loved the look and the way it created its own "in the moment" artistic experience.

That said, anyone whining about its loss needs to learn something about digital postprocessing. Why would you complain about being given complete freedom to make the picture look exactly the way you want? It's not like Kodachrome involved an artisanal film processing discipline - you took the shot, and sent it to a big lab.

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 10:59 AM]

WARNING TO THOSE HOARDING - There is only ONE place in the world (yes in Kansas) that processes it and they will be discontinuing that they say Dec. 31st 2010 - THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE THAT DOES IT, NONE! SO do what you want while you can. I remember back in the 90's one of the biggest labs here in New York City (Duggal) tried taking on Kodachrome processing, and they tried for years to no avail and had to file chapter 11 to keep their doors open, seriously, this film was no joke on many levels. Did anyone mention tht as a color film is archival properties are virtually unmatched? so there you go, nothing more is sacred.

[mesrop June 23, 2009 11:34 AM]

No one is asking the right question, "why is it being discontinued when Kodak just came out with new 35mm slide film?"

I worked in a photo lab for years and people don't realize that its basically a chemical factory. Kodachrome processing is the worst kind of film to process because its toxic and bad for the environment. I for one am happy to see the thing go.

[a_user June 23, 2009 11:36 AM]

to all those that mentioned Fuji, you know that the founders of Fujifilm felt that kodak colour complemented caucasian skin tones, but not asian?

[Ian70 June 23, 2009 3:31 PM]

Good thing Friedman is such a good photographer; he can't spell.

[Anonymous June 23, 2009 7:07 PM]

Steve McCurry, photographer for National Geographic, talks about his fondness for Kodachrome, the film he used to shoot the famous green-eyed Afghan girl photo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2sIVXU8q1o

[mutikonka June 23, 2009 7:46 PM]

A sad day, because Kodachrome is so durable as well as beautiful. I've not been convinced by the digital recreation of the Kodachrome look, and my Kodachrome slides will endure long after a hard drive is obsolete or corrupted.
Just look at this Kodachrome image from 65 years ago, could have been taken yesterday:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgsmith/2306611086/

[pjcamp June 23, 2009 8:08 PM]

There is a Kodachrome Photoshop action available on the web. There is also a Tri-X action for those who like monochrome photography.

You can find them (and Infrared and Velvia actions) here: http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=pbize1&templatefn=FileSharing15.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.15.xml&sitefn=TKSite.3.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en

and examples here:

http://homepage.mac.com/pbize1/Scripts/PSAMenu.html

[gullevek June 23, 2009 9:29 PM]

It feels strange. Something I never shot when I was young, but started to shoot later, and before I could really appreciate it, it is gone.

The development process was ultra complicated, toxic, but the result is nothing any other slide film will ever show. Plus the fact that in more than 200 years those slides will look like there were developed yesterday. None of the other slides will look like this.

So I totally shamelessly plug two of my favorite Kodachrome shots here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/1827760727/in/set-72157602822665168/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/1851520713/in/set-72157602822665168/

rest can be seen in my kodachrome set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gullevek/sets/72157602822665168/

[jfrancis June 23, 2009 9:32 PM]

I think I still have some

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2005/06/make_your_own_v.html

[Anonymous June 27, 2009 1:29 PM]

RIP Kodachrome, you were good, but Fujifilm Velvia was better.

About the hoarding, although it will happen, its going to be foolhardy. Only one or two photolabs left on Earth that can process Kodachrome, and I doubt they'll do it for much longer due to the enormous costs of maintaining the process.

[Anonymous July 7, 2009 1:59 PM]

Nobody is certain where photography is going in the next year or two in terms of the digital/film divide. The downturn in the economy is evident in both camps. Kodachrome sales/usage is not by any means an indicator for film in general.