Kodachrome is coming back... Some guy reversed engineered the entire process.

source please!

I have original patents

nah. Who reengineerd the entire process and where can i find futher information @Rebassed

He misunderstood it, one photographer Frank Glencairn liked kodachrome, but he made a LUT profile for the Sony FS100 digital camera. To mimick the look.

stiknstring ROTFLMAO! ok..are we the only 2 that get the obvious irony? ;-)

Danny Bumpkins You're not the only two hahaha. I'm in.

+stiknstring The fact that he pre-shoots every photo on a Digital Camera also seems pretty funny.

+stiknstring I just got 2 developed rolls kodak gold 200 last week, not too bad, way better than 360p lol.....

+yuxuan qi I don't like Kodak Gold because it is still very grainy. I prefer Ektar or Fujicolor.

I really enjoyed this. Wish it were in HD to appreciate the images more...

Very unlikely since he uses nikon F6, always rewind film automatically.

It's actually impossible - on this particular camera the film is rolling in reverse. Once inserted into the camera the whole film is rolled onto the empty roll and then rolls back into the cartridge on every shot. Thus, even if you accidentally open your camera's back all of the exposed shots are already into the cartridge.

@@petertakov No

not correct

It's back dawg. Ektachrome 100

@@colejensen6397 😅

@@colejensen6397 Ektachrome sucks and is not kodachrome, genius.

There was something special about the delayed gratification of shooting on film and not being able to see the results until days/weeks (even years) after when it was finally processed. I loved the accidental magic that would happen from time to time when you managed to capture that perfect moment, with the perfect lighting/settings and saw it flipping thru your photos for the first time.

Yeah sure was it had the best color saturation of any film

Ektachrome sucks. That was just a disappointing waste.

😂

Big Al And lives in New York.

It's just another medium. Society is too overindulgent and fad obsessed these days always wanting to replace everything completely with something all the time for a feeling of fake progress. Painters don't give up painting just because pastels exist or sculpting exists, you don't have to be only film or digital either.

@@kishascape with digital cameras produced manufacturers gave the opportunity to make your own painting by adjusting colours by yourself (even if you have no clue how to paint, at least most don't and have no idea what good colours look like) without giving the final brushstrokes with the already perfected colours. With film photography part of art is already provided with coloured film and the science behind it. So you can almost say you can never beat film, but also you can create your own masterpiece with digital colour manipulation that doesn't exist with film yet.

T.B.Photo you saw they are bringing back Ektachrome later this year right?

Rediscover Film yes Ektacrome is back. But according to the article on PP. Kodak are resurtshing the possibility to potentially bring back Kodacrome.

T.B.Photo be damn near impossible to keep it alive

He fakes his shots on Photoshop

Unfortunately the revival attempt failed due to the needed development infrastructure no longer existing. The last lab that processed it closed January 11 2011 after it finished a backorder for development.

I'm just hoping it doesn't turn into a roll of New York City. What a waste that will have been. Fingers crossed.

Dark room manipulation and choosing a film type is basically picking a filter before you shoot tho...

+marksikun No real choice. Film simply became an outdated, expensive dinosaur. A beautiful one, but nonetheless..

+Andy I still shoot film.

That's awesome, I guess.

+LDSRaichu Me too!

+Andy film isn't expensive. Good DSLRs can cost upwards of 1000$, while a decent film SLR camera and lens can be had for 50$. Film itself isn't expensive. A roll of Fujifilm is only 3.50. You can buy 100' ft rolls of Ilford film for only 50$, cutting the cost basically in half. Development can be done at home to save costs. You can scan negatives with a flatbed scanner which everyone has available from public libraries, and high quality scanners can be had for 200$ easily. Cost isn't an issue with film, it's the time/workflow of getting all that done. It takes more work, and more time. But some believe it pays off.

'painting' u r wrong

Better than any painting? Do me a favour. Try going to the Prado and standing in front of a Diego Velázquez painting and saying that with a straight face.

It is called color gamut

painting are a completely different medium

Yep, if the pros do it, no shame in it at all lol

@@cpufreak101 you shouldn't be ashamed of it. That's a smart thing to do since you only have 36 shots and you can't delete the bad shot

+TRan TRung yup noticed it

+TRan TRung Thanks for pointing it out. I did spot a continuation error there (I'm more into movies and can't help but notice for that stuff). This is a video production and a lot of it is obviously staged or cherry-picked/edited into a new context to make it more dramatic, flowing and interesting (which doesn't mean it's fake at all - there is simply no other way of making a professional production). I have a feeling this man didn't shoot just one roll of Kodachrome 64, but several - just to be 100% on the safe side. I would have as a photographer and I would have asked the photographer if I was the director/producer of the documentary video.

Yeah, noticed that too! And it looks like he loaded it in an F5 in the beginning... or at least it's what we're lead to think.

You can change cameras with 1 roll actually, just don't wind it all the way

@@Kyzox2000 Not with an F100 or an F5 cause they have autowinders.

He should've used a full manual camera and darkroom loaded for extra exposures.

Digital colour is really ugly. It doesn't come close to film. In fact, film is better hands down. The onky thing digital has is it's quicker, but to be that is a downside speaking as an artist.

The one question digital photographers don't ask is how their images are going to be preserved for 60 plus years with all the changes in technology. I just got through having my kodachrome slides taken in the fifties scanned as well as black and white negatives for the early 1900's and they came out great. Some of these can be see on my Flickr site. My early aurora photographs were taken using Kodachrome 200 pushed 2 stops with great results. www.flickr.com/photos/116856615@N07/

The reason almost nobody shoots film these days is because you can emulate the look of film in post production on your raw files. And you're joking that film has a more vivid color than digital, right??? (Maybe 6 years ago when you made that statement this was true). I shot Velvia and Provia and Ektachrome for years and none of those film stocks are better than digital. I really don't know why anyone would spend the time to shoot film (print or transparency), process it, scan it into a digital file to do post production (and then print it lol) when you can just shoot a raw file and do what you want to it in post. Film is largely inferior to digital in terms of image quality: even the mighty Provia only had about 8 stops of dynamic range compared to a digital file's 10-14 stops. And you can make a raw file into a color or mono image, can't do that with film. The problem with digital as I see it is the over-reliance on resolution (more megapixels). Kodachrome had the equivalence of about 8mp of resolution compared to digital, Ektachrome maybe 10mp, Provia 10~12. Nowadays if you don't shoot at least 24mp you're a dinosaur, unworthy to hold a digital camera lol. And the more resolution a photograph has the less it looks like film. The industry has been too focused on image-quality and selling the latest greatest sharpest sensors and lenses. We as photographers should be focusing on quality images, not necessarily image-quality. Did anyone care that Saul Leiter's photograph's were not super sharp? His colors were muted too, but that was "his" look. He made timeless images. No, I'm not contradicting my first paragraph. I'm not advocating a return to color film. Film was messy and time consuming and expensive (digital "film" is cheap). Especially when you can get the look of film on a 12-20mp Canon or a 16mp Fuji SOOC. B&W film is the exception. At least with B&W you can control the entire process from exposure to developing the neg to printing. Shooting and processing B&W film is the essence of true photography IMHO. But for God's sake develop your own film, don't send it to a lab, and print the negatives in a darkroom, don't scan them into a digital file and do post production and printing on your computer. Only wankers do that. Just one old photographer's opinion.

Yes.

you are amazing shenaz

You’re not on here. Stop lying. Always trying to fake famousness

@@phatcrayonz at 26:23 , yes she is Shenaz Treasury, an Indian model, TV host.

Im guessing a troll..just a feeling

Yes I noticed that too

Anime Studio Animation SO EXCITED!

how do you feel

I shot my first roll of it not long ago and love it. it will be one of my favourite color films next to Cinestill 800T that I love using for night shots.

Except the slowest speed you can get is 100asa. I don't think they are bringing back the 25asa film. Oh well at least they are bringing it back.

Ektachrome is dead! It's not discontinued or anything it's just dead to me.

Love the x700. 570, xd11, 101. All great

i know right! so beautiful

The digital is a light meter. Like people used to use Polaroids.