PDA

View Full Version : Forget 4K or HD ... Super 8 is back !


Simon Bee
11th January 2016, 10:38 PM
Well soonish anyway .......

......... http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/corp/press_center/Kodak_Launches_Super_8_Filmmaking_Revival_Initiati ve_at_CES_2016/default.htm

Kind regards, Simon

Jim Ford
11th January 2016, 11:01 PM
Yeah - and daguerreotype has an indefinable quality that neither film nor digital can produce. Will they have us going back to that then?

Jim

David M
11th January 2016, 11:13 PM
Super 8 is a motel chain over here.

Bring back Kodachrome 25.

DerekW
11th January 2016, 11:20 PM
First thought - there will be lots of quality Super 8 cameras in cupboards and attics so it should be easy to get a quality camera quite cheap -
then
I remember the cost of cine film in 1962 and increased it to take account of inflation and low production volumes and I think that a 4 minute roll of film will be of the order of 100 or more.

I wonder which processing plant Kodak is going to excavate and refurbish to process the film.

Naughty Nigel
12th January 2016, 04:54 PM
Bring back Kodachrome 25.

Yes please, in 120 roll film if you can. :D

Simon Bee
12th January 2016, 07:31 PM
Yeah - and daguerreotype has an indefinable quality that neither film nor digital can produce. Will they have us going back to that then?

Jim

Stranger things have happened Jim :eek:

Kind regards, Simon

Simon Bee
12th January 2016, 07:33 PM
Bring back Kodachrome 25.

Absolutely David *yes

IMO The finest 'Chrome' film ever

Kind regards, Simon

Simon Bee
12th January 2016, 07:34 PM
Yes please, in 120 roll film if you can. :D

I 'second' that Nigel, and while they are at it .... .4x5 would be rather nice too:D

Kind regards, Simon

Simon Bee
12th January 2016, 08:11 PM
I know I 'bang on' about film a lot, that's because it's the medium 'I' prefer. I enjoy using digital cameras too, just not as much as film ones ;)

This forum is primarily a 'digital based' platform of course, however it is great and refreshing that we members are on the whole open minded enough to discuss both mediums without slagging each other off. That's what is so great about the E-system user group and why I still enjoy being an active member even though 'most' but not all of my photography is once again taken on film, we really do have something quite unique and special here.

What 'I' find encouraging about recent Kodak announcements is that they are committed to film, expanding its range and production and very enthusiastic about it too. I would LOVE to see Kodachrome 25 manufactured again and Technical Pan 25 too, however whether they will rise from the ashes is another matter, what does seem clear though is Kodak has;)

Digital capture has revolutionised photography and is without doubt the No.1 medium in terms of popularity but from my standpoint at least ..... it is great to see film sales, production and development on the rise. Both Ffords and Mifsud's are advertising on their sites for 'quality film cameras urgently wanted, all formats' and something I find more 'telling' .... Clifton Cameras, who for several years have only sold digital cameras have not only recently started listing a new film camera ( albeit just one currently ... the Leica MA, then again how many 'new' options are there ) but now list them under their secondhand equipment too, so they obviously are seeing a demand that is worth taking advantage of ;)

Kind regards, Simon

David M
12th January 2016, 08:15 PM
Absolutely David *yes

IMO The finest 'Chrome' film ever

Kind regards, Simon

I know, I was a Kodachrome hold out when a lot of editors preferred Velvia for its colour palette and saturation.

Bikie John
12th January 2016, 08:28 PM
Lovely as Kodachrome was, I thought that the reason it got canned was because of the processing chemistry. Not only was it unique, it also produced extremely nasty waste chemicals and in the end disposing of them got so awkward that it wasn't worth anyone's while.

I would be interested to hear if anyone knows more of the story.

John

Simon Bee
12th January 2016, 08:35 PM
Lovely as Kodachrome was, I thought that the reason it got canned was because of the processing chemistry. Not only was it unique, it also produced extremely nasty waste chemicals and in the end disposing of them got so awkward that it wasn't worth anyone's while.

I would be interested to hear if anyone knows more of the story.

John

Yes I believe you are correct there John, such a shame because when exposed correctly Kodachrome 25 simply 'took your breath away !' ;)

David M
12th January 2016, 10:40 PM
Lovely as Kodachrome was, I thought that the reason it got canned was because of the processing chemistry. Not only was it unique, it also produced extremely nasty waste chemicals and in the end disposing of them got so awkward that it wasn't worth anyone's while.

I would be interested to hear if anyone knows more of the story.

John

I always suspected it was a combination of the above and a big drop in demand after editors and agencies preferred Velvia. Probably 90% of Kodachrome was sold in bulk to photo departments and pros before Velvia was launched.

Naughty Nigel
12th January 2016, 11:56 PM
Lovely as Kodachrome was, I thought that the reason it got canned was because of the processing chemistry. Not only was it unique, it also produced extremely nasty waste chemicals and in the end disposing of them got so awkward that it wasn't worth anyone's while.

I would be interested to hear if anyone knows more of the story.

John

I'm not sure if this is true.

When the famous Box 14 in Hemel Hempstead closed Kodachrome processing moved to Switzerland for several years, which is the last place you would want to use any nasty chemicals! The final processing plant was located in the USA.

Kodak is an American corporation so if Kodachrome processing really was dangerous I would have expected them to move the processing lab to Asia or Africa where the concept of health and safety at work is still something of a novelty. :(

Graham_of_Rainham
13th January 2016, 08:59 AM
...Bring back Kodachrome 25.

100% Agree. 60% of my slides are that.

Simon Bee
23rd January 2016, 10:17 PM
Yeah - and daguerreotype has an indefinable quality that neither film nor digital can produce. Will they have us going back to that then?

Jim

http://www.colorsandgrays.com/#+/a-20-min-documentary-meeting-wet-collodion-photographer-chris-honeysett/

:D:D

David M
1st February 2016, 03:51 PM
Yeah - and daguerreotype has an indefinable quality that neither film nor digital can produce. Will they have us going back to that then?

Jim

I saw a piece on TV last night about a photographer in British Columbia, Canada who is making Bromoil prints. Some nice looking prints but very time consuming.

Graham_of_Rainham
1st February 2016, 04:11 PM
I got invited, by a model, to a "fine art" life drawing session. Not sure what that says about my photography. :confused:

drmarkf
1st February 2016, 04:54 PM
I got invited, by a model, to a "fine art" life drawing session. Not sure what that says about my photography. :confused:

Sounds like you need to lick one of those bromoil prints, Graham.

*yes

cariadus
3rd February 2016, 11:10 AM
Yeah - and daguerreotype has an indefinable quality that neither film nor digital can produce. Will they have us going back to that then?

Probably not too many people doing daguerreotypes these days but lots of wet plate photographers out there. My favourite is probably Alex Timmermans.

Would you belive that this is a wet plate photo?

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/326/20483183162_83120370fd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/xd2EJo)
Swan lake... (https://flic.kr/p/xd2EJo) by alex (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfromholland/), on Flickr

And a video on how it was made:
The making of "Swan lake...." - YouTube