Despite having been out of Quality Assurance for almost ten years, I still found myself writing two bug reports at the same time as my film scanner was scanning this photo.
When a character in a movie says, “We’ll ride out at first light,” the scene when they ride out should probably not be shot at around noon. Just because Hollywood executives are too stupid to tell the difference doesn’t mean everybody is.
The frame counter reset on my Leica MP recently broke, so I took it to Samy’s Camera, the store I bought it from. I was afraid they’d tell me I had to send it back to Leica for repair (the last time I dealt with Leica it took them six months to repair a damaged lens), but fortunately they told me it could be repaired in the store. To my surprise, it took only four days for them to finish the work!
Aperture 3 adds Faces, Places, and improved local adjustment.
After a long wait, Apple has released the next major update to its pro-class photo workflow application, Aperture 3. The new version boasts over 200 new features, including the addition of the successful facial recognition and geotagging features, Faces and Places, that were introduced with iPhoto ’09. Version 3 also adds edge-detecting adjustment brushes for non-destructive localized editing and touch-ups. Along with numerous UI and performance improvements, Aperture 3 adds full 64-bit support on supported systems running Snow Leopard.
Aperture has always had a focus on the workflow of professional photographers, but Apple also markets it for amateurs that want to move beyond the simplicity of iPhoto. Aperture 3 takes that even further, seemingly melding more power and advanced management with the features and ease of use of iPhoto.
[Ars Technica]
I’d been interested in Aperture since version two as a replacement for iView MediaPro, which was bought out and abandoned by Microsoft years ago. However, earlier versions of Aperture couldn’t handle the very large files produced by scanning 4×5 film (a slide produces a file around 1.25 GB) and would crash if you tried to add one. That problem has been fixed in version three–probably due to a combination of 64-bit support in Snow Leopard, and the fact that my Photoshop system has 24 GB of RAM.
Kodachrome Ends 74-Year Run.
By Ernst Haas
Eastman Kodak announced this morning that it will cease the manufacture of Kodachrome this year.
Celebrated in song (literally!) and story, Kodachrome is the oldest film in production and the longest-lived film product in the entire history of photography. Developed by Leopold Godowsky and Leopold Mannes (known as “God and Man” within Kodak) in 1935, Kodachrome had exceptionally low contrast (a good thing in a transparency film) and an inimitably rich, beautiful color palette. For decades it was by far the best color material extant. Among other things, for many years around mid-century it relegated families to long sessions in darkened rooms with a slide projector and a screen, the best way people had of showing each other their vacation and birthday party pictures. Many leading photographers even today, including Sam Abell, William Albert Allard, and Steve McCurry, did much of their important early work on Kodachrome.
However, it is inherently slow and very difficult to manufacture, and devilishly intricate to process. Only one lab in the world is currently processing it—Dwayne’s in Kansas, USA. The best article about Kodachrome was published in Popular Photography and reprinted in the book The Best of Popular Photography. (I should be able to provide issue and page number, but I can’t seem to put my hands on it.) Many film users—including avowed Kodachrome fans—have moved away from it in recent years. It currently accounts for less than 1% of Kodak’s shrinking film sales.
It might have been ’97 or ’98 that I first wrote about the coming demise of Kodachrome, in the pages of Photo Techniques, at the time Kodak suspended in-house processing services. If memory serves, however, Kodak promised back then to continue manufacturing the film for at least ten more years. It kept that promise.
God and Man, inventors of Kodachrome. I own a large dye transfer print of this picture, but I’ve never been sure who was who. I think Godowsky is at the piano. (Thanks to Helen Bach.)
This end was inevitable, but it was certainly a fine long run! Not for nothing is the press around the world this morning calling Kodachrome “one of the iconic products of the 20th century.”
Bravo to God, Man, Kodachrome, Kodak, and “those nice, bright colors.” R.I.P.
Send this post to a friend
[The Online Photographer]
Kodachrome is my favorite color film. The patent for it has to be long-expired by now, so maybe we’ll get lucky and someone else will start making it (under a different name), the way that Fuji makes Polaroid film.
From a mailing list for music photographers:
What do photographers make? *Salary data is from PayScale.com. Salaries listed are for full time workers with 5–8 years of experience and include any bonuses or profit sharing. Freelance photographer — $35,728 Photojournalist — $37,403 News photographer — $43,001 Fashion photographer — $48,710 Sports photographer — $44,686
What do photographers make? *Salary data is from PayScale.com. Salaries listed are for full time workers with 5–8 years of experience and include any bonuses or profit sharing.
Freelance photographer — $35,728 Photojournalist — $37,403 News photographer — $43,001 Fashion photographer — $48,710 Sports photographer — $44,686
And people ask me why I don’t want to be a professional photographer…
From a comment referring to the Gestapo harassing photographers:
That’s right; I don’t want to be too technical, but the focal length of the lens is directly correlated with hatred of America. It goes something like this: You have a a cell phone camera, point and shoot, or 20mm wide angle lens: you are a red blooded American who wants to celebrate our national heritage by taking pictures of popular tourist locations. A 50mm lens: you are also, by and large, a good American, but you have a disturbing interest in “understanding” the terrorists and why they attack us. An 85mm lens: you loath your own country and secretly admire the 9/11 hijackers for giving us our come-up-ins. You are not a terrorist, but your camera should probably be confiscated and your pictures deleted, lest they find their way to al Jazeera message boards. Your middle name may be Hussein. A 200mm lens: you are an al Qaeda henchman actively scouting for security vulnerabilities. A 300mm lens: you ARE bin Laden! And yes, every tripod is suitable for launching RPGs, but you need a ball head to attach heat seeking missiles.
That’s right; I don’t want to be too technical, but the focal length of the lens is directly correlated with hatred of America. It goes something like this:
You have a a cell phone camera, point and shoot, or 20mm wide angle lens: you are a red blooded American who wants to celebrate our national heritage by taking pictures of popular tourist locations.
A 50mm lens: you are also, by and large, a good American, but you have a disturbing interest in “understanding” the terrorists and why they attack us.
An 85mm lens: you loath your own country and secretly admire the 9/11 hijackers for giving us our come-up-ins. You are not a terrorist, but your camera should probably be confiscated and your pictures deleted, lest they find their way to al Jazeera message boards. Your middle name may be Hussein.
A 200mm lens: you are an al Qaeda henchman actively scouting for security vulnerabilities.
A 300mm lens: you ARE bin Laden!
And yes, every tripod is suitable for launching RPGs, but you need a ball head to attach heat seeking missiles.
Another Matt
Rolleiflex
Two people who were interested in one of my older cameras requested that I take this photo. The camera is a mid-1950s Rolleiflex, with attached Rolleiflash. The camera cost $135 on eBay, and the flash was $1.50 at KEH.
When scanned with my Nikon LS-9000, a 6×6 photo produces a file of approximately 75 megapixels, and with a dynamic range greater than the newest and most expensive digital camera can produce.
Sample photo using Ektar 100.
I tried a roll of Kodak’s new Ektar 100 film. As advertised, it has very fine grain. However, it suffers from the same problem that all C41 films have–you’ll definitely get some color, but any resemblance between the color you get out of the film and the color that was there in reality is purely coincidental. I do have a second roll to try out, but I think I’ll be sticking to Kodachrome.
Birds in the water at Santa Monica Beach.
Recently I’ve been shooting more Kodachrome.
