Digitally facing the Light
Funny thing is my digital camera (it’s now a Canon) acts a lot like Ektachrome — it hates to be overexposed. And, again, like film, the “AUTO” mode is basically useless if you want good results. I find myself in the “M” (manual) mode constantly knocking the exposure level down by a stop or sometimes by 2 stops. Where the digital Canon far outshines the old E-6 processed Ektachrome is in the post-production — downloading the images, making copies and changing the exposure levels after the image has been captured. In the old days (as late as the mid to late 1990’s) if a slide or transparency needed copied, lightened or darkened, it had to be done on a professional slide duplicator, such as a Forox, and even then the results were questionable.
Another aspect of digital shooting is the lack of generational degradation. Any copy of the image looks as good as the original — barring any compression issues. With the old slide duplicators, such as the Forox, this was never true. I remember cringing when I would “dupe-a-dupe” — this happened when the original image had been lost and all that was left was a first or second generation duplicate (“dupe.”) So, duping a dupe could put you 2 or 3 or more generations from the original slide and – yuck – you could tell. Especially in print or on a large screen. Kinda sounds like cloning, doesn’t it? Always keep the original.
Digital photography and its rapid (and continued) evolution eventually cost me my job working in a commercial film & paper processing lab. That, my friends, was digital’s biggest down-side for me.
The Header Photo: Above, in the header, is the Ektachrome Family Compound where there is always a never-ending twilight. With one mercury-vapor light and an internet connection I attempt to stave off the darkness of this world and the next…
Avatar Photo: A “fake” slide – it’s really a scan of a 1980-vintage Ektachrome slide mount with a digital image inserted via Photoshop.
8 responses so far ↓
knowledgetoday // March 30, 2009 at 2:17 am
I love your site. Keep it up !
Daniel // August 15, 2009 at 10:05 pm
>Is it still being manufactured by Kodak?
Yes, they still make Ektachrome 200, and although they’ve discontinued 160T, 64T is available—you should go and get yourself some.
ektachrome // August 16, 2009 at 8:03 am
Ektachrome may still be made, but the bigger question is, why would anyone buy film?
Jim // September 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm
E200 has been discontinued in 120 format. Try finding some. My freezer is full of it.
Film is not dead by the way. My MF film astrophotography shots beat the pants off digital. Only $$ cooled CCD’s come close.
ektachrome // September 13, 2009 at 9:16 am
Jim: I think you’ll agree that “astrophotography” is a very specialized area — I’m not familiar with it, so if you say film is better – it’s better.
No matter how much film you hoard, I think you, and all film users will eventually run into the problem of getting the film processed or even purchasing the chemicals to do it yourself. Pro labs are shutting down everywhere because of extremely low film volume and the high costs of keeping their machinery and chemicals in balance.
People not involved in the processing end of film are not aware of the high chemical costs, high equipment cost and the high costs of managing the effluent from the machines.
Film volume is so low now that, in many cases, it costs more to turn on the machine than you can charge to process a roll of 35/120/220.
George // October 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Let me say, your site is boring…do you have nothing better to do then attack? Get a life.
ektachrome // October 17, 2009 at 9:05 pm
And yet you’re a reader and a fan — thanks, Georgie!
T // November 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Your site rocks! Keep up the good work.