Baroudeuse
Kodachrome rancor and shoulder shrugs, the return to something of a debate over or about a tool for imaging and what that means for the application of present films and digital sensors.
What matter is it that KR is now discontinued and what matter is the hostility toward Kodak for making a change? This matter of either being against a decision or simply shrugging the shoulders and pointing out that Ektachrome 100 is almost the same divides the point along lines of technicality and details and avoids the notion that there is something to explore with using a film or a camera at all. Is there not a forest and the trees scenario to explore here, or is there more to the lament that the dying of an iconic imaging medium, one that defined 20th C. photojournalism and color imaging for the masses, makes us feel disappointed and angry? Should Kodak be boycotted for such and outrageous act, as though Kodak’s responsibility to continue production of KR is akin to Hershey being ordered to make chocolate and Levis forced to sew 501’s in the USA?
No exploratory question defines the details of the change enough and the search for a reasonable answer to these feelings or the kick in the gut the change the news declares, makes this an interesting subject. Only a single lab is still processing the film and only online or mail order suppliers were still selling the film. This is a most inconvenient situation and why I haven’t used the film for years. In fact, I stopped using KR as long ago in the early 90’s, when I could hardly afford the film, processing or a camera; all good real conditions for competing decisions to eat pizza or buy film in NYC after a hitch in the Army. But what of the sense of change and the framework of the change in regard to the meaning of how the imaging can influence and speak a language of emotion and persuasion across time? This demands more investigation and worry, or maybe not.
The digital sensor is still in a state of development that is slowly catching up to the model of film performance which is held as a standard for imaging and reference. This reference allows that the digital imaging sensor is still not film and the debates of why and how the two are to be regarded against each other misses more of the potential of each of them alone; each tool doing what it does best, quietly recording visions and moments. Too much talk and not enough photography… Set aside the forum gas and take the camera for a walk. Too much time is wasted, even here with this rambling yawp, looking for something to speak for us and speak definitively beyond reproach. A gold standard is still not well fixed in the changing and marketing blitz that is the past ten years of digital product development. This gold standard is not that elusive, but it is still too expensive to produce under mass production methods. Once we have this chalice of digital sensor performance will we not be without reserve to still find want and worry over imaging details as esoteric and senseless as film image profiles, chromatic aberration control, and bokeh? Blast all of that! Simply fill the machine with whatever is available and go explore the world.
The film and the film performance makes much difference to the outcome and results of the process. That process is a personal and quiet effort, in my case, that works on many levels of the spirit at once. Not always an easy item to explore, I resort to half thought passages of interest to try and excise this tension and strive for a cleaner and more balanced approach to imaging. The details of a film’s attributes are an important body of knowledge and experience for an artist plying with a camera. The search is inclusive and extroverted at the same time and the film is the medium that lies in the vortex where any change of attention and slip of place will miss a fleeting aspect of composition and nuance of light that matters deeply to the practitioner. Change the film or the sensor’s attributes and the working process, the synergy is disturbed and a new working method is forced to begin. These things are important to those that study seriously the details of careful imaging and photographic work in search of an aesthetic. So for those that were working with KR this change is significant and severe. I suppose there are fewer of these folks than most photographers understand. We should be quiet with our criticisms and bellicose attitudes and let these few speak out and explain to us what this change means most.
FC
What matter is it that KR is now discontinued and what matter is the hostility toward Kodak for making a change? This matter of either being against a decision or simply shrugging the shoulders and pointing out that Ektachrome 100 is almost the same divides the point along lines of technicality and details and avoids the notion that there is something to explore with using a film or a camera at all. Is there not a forest and the trees scenario to explore here, or is there more to the lament that the dying of an iconic imaging medium, one that defined 20th C. photojournalism and color imaging for the masses, makes us feel disappointed and angry? Should Kodak be boycotted for such and outrageous act, as though Kodak’s responsibility to continue production of KR is akin to Hershey being ordered to make chocolate and Levis forced to sew 501’s in the USA?
No exploratory question defines the details of the change enough and the search for a reasonable answer to these feelings or the kick in the gut the change the news declares, makes this an interesting subject. Only a single lab is still processing the film and only online or mail order suppliers were still selling the film. This is a most inconvenient situation and why I haven’t used the film for years. In fact, I stopped using KR as long ago in the early 90’s, when I could hardly afford the film, processing or a camera; all good real conditions for competing decisions to eat pizza or buy film in NYC after a hitch in the Army. But what of the sense of change and the framework of the change in regard to the meaning of how the imaging can influence and speak a language of emotion and persuasion across time? This demands more investigation and worry, or maybe not.
The digital sensor is still in a state of development that is slowly catching up to the model of film performance which is held as a standard for imaging and reference. This reference allows that the digital imaging sensor is still not film and the debates of why and how the two are to be regarded against each other misses more of the potential of each of them alone; each tool doing what it does best, quietly recording visions and moments. Too much talk and not enough photography… Set aside the forum gas and take the camera for a walk. Too much time is wasted, even here with this rambling yawp, looking for something to speak for us and speak definitively beyond reproach. A gold standard is still not well fixed in the changing and marketing blitz that is the past ten years of digital product development. This gold standard is not that elusive, but it is still too expensive to produce under mass production methods. Once we have this chalice of digital sensor performance will we not be without reserve to still find want and worry over imaging details as esoteric and senseless as film image profiles, chromatic aberration control, and bokeh? Blast all of that! Simply fill the machine with whatever is available and go explore the world.
The film and the film performance makes much difference to the outcome and results of the process. That process is a personal and quiet effort, in my case, that works on many levels of the spirit at once. Not always an easy item to explore, I resort to half thought passages of interest to try and excise this tension and strive for a cleaner and more balanced approach to imaging. The details of a film’s attributes are an important body of knowledge and experience for an artist plying with a camera. The search is inclusive and extroverted at the same time and the film is the medium that lies in the vortex where any change of attention and slip of place will miss a fleeting aspect of composition and nuance of light that matters deeply to the practitioner. Change the film or the sensor’s attributes and the working process, the synergy is disturbed and a new working method is forced to begin. These things are important to those that study seriously the details of careful imaging and photographic work in search of an aesthetic. So for those that were working with KR this change is significant and severe. I suppose there are fewer of these folks than most photographers understand. We should be quiet with our criticisms and bellicose attitudes and let these few speak out and explain to us what this change means most.
FC
Comments
And here is a related question..
Who mourned the passing of the calligrapher's skills and character of hand eye and heart of each and all ...when the printing press came?
I do and still do and each should for with that passing another nuance of human possibility ...one of equisite beauty and import passed to the heart of the world.
And who remembers it all..who will?
Each of us should...and who will remind us of what was lost and can when we seek be found again at least as practice and image of our best in a certain mode...to be carried forwad in that tradtion of the West for those not yet here?
Regarding this..above...and that of what this entry and the other speaks...
and so much more...I know You will.
Love...PW
FC