FILM CHANGES

I promised to write (briefly) about other films and how they affected the reign of Kodachrome. Spoiler Alert: This is a bit of recent photo history of limited interest to some. I offer it to show how photography changes, sometimes intentionally and often not.

In 1981 Fuji Film secured being Official Film of the 1984 Olympics after Kodak badly bungled negotiations as sponsor in its own country. Kodak became the Official Film for the 1988 Olympics but by then Fuji had made significant market inroads.

Fuji lured color negative users for traditional prints with claims of better color.  It turned out to have improved image permanence at a time when Kodak prints from the 1960’s and ‘70’s were badly fading. Kodak was sued as early as 1976 for print fading but prevailed on technicalities having nothing to do with the issue.

Later Fuji introduced Velvia to pros used to Kodachrome.  When a scene was photographed with both films, the Velvia jumped out like an idealized picture postcard with enhanced saturation and contrast.  We joked about using “Velveeta”, but many of us embraced Fuji.  Kodak eventually introduced several clone variations of the competition after great loss of market share.

Ektachrome was a Kodak slide film from the 1960’s with slightly enhanced color over Kodachrome but its key distinction was local labs (even hobbyists) could easily and quickly process it.  Fuji used the same chemical process.

By 2010 the last roll of Kodachrome had been processed. Both Fuji and Kodak had already been losing ground to digital capture as well as printing, though Fuji still makes very high end as well as consumer digital cameras.

With brilliant phone photos we give little thought to processing or permanence – visually or archivally.  I gave these issues little thought shooting large format view camera Ektachrome transparencies across Britain, Europe, Japan, Thailand and Nepal. On a light box, they were gorgeous. But Ektachrome E-3 turned out to be the worst film Kodak ever made with significant fading within 5 years.

Here’s an example (above).  The rice harvest on picturesque terraces in Nepal is shown as the 4x5 transparency is today.  I’ve restored it as I’d like to see it- in spite perhaps, to look as if it had been shot on Velvia.

You have little concern for phone photos fading, but what shoe box will you reference to show today’s kindergarten photos at a wedding 20 years on?

These changes in permanence issues, whether in choices of film, type of camera, fading or archiving are important but a preamble to other types of changes I experience daily in photography and will address next.

Virtually yours,