[Hypocorism]

Bring out the vinyl records, '58 Edsels and beta tapes. Heavy nostalgic sobs and usual luddite lamentations will continue to flow just as fluid as the chemicals did.

US Kodachrome lab develops final roll - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

.R.

[jolepp]

I'm having difficulty tuning in: eliminating the film, development, (some of) the printing [, postage] cost and the *wait* is übercool :-)

[Hypocorism]

I'm having difficulty tuning in: eliminating the film, development, (some of) the printing [, postage] cost and the *wait* is übercool :-)

ROFL!

Yes, I suppose missing the "smell of napalm in the morning" might be a bit tough for the Dwaynesville© area residents and their local water table too.

.R.

[Blue]

ROFL!

Yes, I suppose missing the "smell of napalm in the morning" might be a bit tough for the Dwaynesville© area residents and their local water table too.

.R.

Electronics manufacturing isn't exactly "friendly" to water tables and Pb, Cd, Cr, Hg are next to impossible to get out of aquifers.

[Wheatfield]

Kodachrome was the only truly archival colour photographic material. Colour negative isn't, Ektachrome process films aren't, and digital is the least archival storage medium available. For that reason alone photographers who are interested in leaving some sort of legacy behind should be a sad about this.

[eddie1960]

Kodachrome was the only truly archival colour photographic material. Colour negative isn't, Ektachrome process films aren't, and digital is the least archival storage medium available. For that reason alone photographers who are interested in leaving some sort of legacy behind should be a sad about this.

Big +1
I will truly miss it
and my velvia chromes from 20 years back may be standing up reasonably well but they sure don't pop like they used to

[Blue]

Big +1
I will truly miss it
and my velvia chromes from 20 years back may be standing up reasonably well but they sure don't pop like they used to

I think the only thing even remotely close to the colors is Portra NC and it is a negative with limited archival quality but maybe better than some negative film.

Kodachrome was the only truly archival colour photographic material. Colour negative isn't, Ektachrome process films aren't, and digital is the least archival storage medium available. For that reason alone photographers who are interested in leaving some sort of legacy behind should be a sad about this.

Most people don't realize this about digital formats and cd/dvd materials.

[eddie1960]

I think the only thing even remotely close to the colors is Portra NC and it is a negative with limited archival quality but maybe better than some negative film.

Yep Velvia really isn't a replacement, though it is the film that got me away from Kodachrome.
I haven't tried either the Ektar or the Ektachrome which are the films Kodak Proposes as replacements. I have seen some images from them and they seem like fine films, but they sure don't look like Kodachrome 64 or 25, perhaps as a 200 replacement
I've used Porta NC and do like it, but I really don't think Negative film is the same thing, it has more latitude and there is more operator input into the final output. With chromes either you nail it or you don't, and if you know the film you can shoot confident of what the final result should be. It's a liberating experience really compared to all the time we put into Digital Post processing

[stevebrot]

Most people don't realize this about digital formats and cd/dvd materials.

So true. It was sobering the first time I had an audio cd go dead after only a couple of years use. Consider too that the files on our computers are only as good as the software needed to read them. Can I count the number of obsolete/orphaned image formats? In 2050, I wonder whether anyone will be able to view a Pentax RAW file from my K10D?


Steve

[boriscleto]

In 2050, I wonder whether anyone will be able to view a Pentax RAW file from my K10D?

As long as Lemkesoft is around, yes.

Import and export formats

TIFF has been around for 25 years, GIF almost as long. JPEG files turn 19 this year, the group was organized 25 years ago.

[eddie1960]

So true. It was sobering the first time I had an audio cd go dead after only a couple of years use. Consider too that the files on our computers are only as good as the software needed to read them. Can I count the number of obsolete/orphaned image formats? In 2050, I wonder whether anyone will be able to view a Pentax RAW file from my K10D?


Steve

which is the best argument for printing your images in an archival manner, at least the ones you want to survive

[jolepp]

In a sense digital is ideal for archiving as a copy of file is as perfect as the original. There are standard (jpeg) or at least documented (dng) formats that are likely to stick around (or at least be implementable) so currently keeping an archive would mean copying the files over to new media (e.g. from PATA to SATA hard drives) every 5-10 years or so to keep the stuff accessible.

[Hypocorism]

In a sense digital is ideal for archiving as a copy of file is as perfect as the original. There are standard (jpeg) or at least documented (dng) formats that are likely to stick around (or at least be implementable) so currently keeping an archive would mean copying the files over to new media (e.g. from PATA to SATA hard drives) every 5-10 years or so to keep the stuff accessible.

I think you have it spot on. In my view digital cannot possibly decay or not be reproducible because it is simple mathematical (binary) data! It has no real physical existence (only a variable host), unlike film or other analog format.
Hence even allowing a suitable compatible media reader to be manufactured a million years into the future, to re-render it exactly as original, zero decay and guaranteed to original specs. You just need to keep the same stream of "bits" on... whatever.

I don't believe science has to date, or ever will, achieved that level of purity in exactness of replication and cross transfer to more durable medium with (analog) film images.

And Ted Turner would go and apply his version of Photoslop™ to death (TTs penchant for colourising) the stuff in the archival process anyway!

I expect if not my own digital pix, then definitely my (our) offspring's will be potentially eternal in the natural evolution process of the Internet, online storage with mega-speed on-tap retrieval will be the status quo. What could be better archiving than bit-perfect auto replication, safe, secured and off-site?
Normal backup distributed archiving principles of major networks is the assurance. The Googles of this world just do not fall over or lose data.

OnT: One reason that spurred me to post this topic was that it bought back memories of the last Kodak plant in my country closing down its Coburg Vic Au site in late 2004. It was a big thing, they'd dominated the film processing market for eons, until Digital rang the death knell.
(You probably recall the same happenings in your own countries.)

And a great pic here of an earlier Kodak Au site - before they shifted suburbs:
http://museumvictoria.museum/collections/items/1399226/photograph-kodak-aust...oria-1927-1930
Hmm... so this is how the Box Brownie was assembled!
http://museumvictoria.museum/collections/items/1399523/photograph-kodak-aust...oria-1958-1963
(That was the camera that imprinted 'photography' in my life~psyche from back in ankle-biter days.)
How would you like your new K-5 repaired here?
http://museumvictoria.com.au/collections/items/1399373/photograph-kodak-aust...ria-circa-1957

.R. << Being guilty of nostalgia.

[Wheatfield]

In a sense digital is ideal for archiving as a copy of file is as perfect as the original. There are standard (jpeg) or at least documented (dng) formats that are likely to stick around (or at least be implementable) so currently keeping an archive would mean copying the files over to new media (e.g. from PATA to SATA hard drives) every 5-10 years or so to keep the stuff accessible.

Except for transcription errors, bit loss, file truncation, or any of the other things that can happen.
The point being though, if one needs to copy and recopy something every few years because of media degradation or file incompatibility or changes in software or hardware, that media can not be claimed to be archival with a straight face.
With digital, only frequent intervention will keep files usable, and the possibility of catastrophic loss is much greater unless intervention is ongoing.

With Kodachrome, all you need is cool, dark and dry and the image will last for at least 200 years.

[ChrisPlatt]

Matthew Brady's Civil War negatives can still be printed but
can anyone here read this 20 year old 5-1/4" 360K floppy disk?

In theory digital might be archival but in practice it is not and will never be.
Formats, media and file types simply change too rapidly.

Chris