Guest Xing Posted January 21, 2009 Share #41 Posted January 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) By the way, for those of you who discount the importance of choosing Kodachrome for this historic event, Kodachrome is more than a film, it is brilliant era spanning over 7 decades with many iconic images. This is why I am meeting with the Libeary of Congress tomorow, to seek out more support for a cause I sincerely believe in. Do let us know how that works out for you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Hi Guest Xing, Take a look here The inauguration on Kodachrome.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted January 22, 2009 The same place as most film. Landfill. Wow, that seems to be a rather sad outlook on the future of humanity 200 years from now. Unless you mean something else by that... For instance, it is not too dificult to find originals that are 100 years old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2009 Share #43 Posted January 22, 2009 For instance, it is not too dificult to find originals that are 100 years old. Indeed it is. But two things spring to mind. In those days photographs weren't that common and so had a higher 'value' to those that inherited them, and secondly even those that are available probably only represent a fraction of those that were taken. So it may seem depressing, but it doesn't bother me. Obviously you feel differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 22, 2009 Share #44 Posted January 22, 2009 All that stuff backed up on your hard drives and DVDs will be landfill that's for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 22, 2009 Share #45 Posted January 22, 2009 In a fit of post-ironic modernism I think I shall buy some Kodachrome and go and shoot a landfill site this weekend. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 22, 2009 Share #46 Posted January 22, 2009 In a fit of post-ironic modernism I think I shall buy some Kodachrome and go and shoot a landfill site this weekend. Regards, Bill I can almost guarantee you some good shots Bill! Not because of the Kodachrome, but because of your subject choice. It conforms to (one of) my philosophy(s) which is: Shoot anything that nobody else probaly will. It turns up some interesting images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 22, 2009 Share #47 Posted January 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can almost guarantee you some good shots Bill! Not because of the Kodachrome, but because of your subject choice. It conforms to (one of) my philosophy(s) which is: Shoot anything that nobody else probaly will. It turns up some interesting images. Erl, you are so right. I made a few quid last year on just that basis, ending up with images sold for magazine illustrations and even a corporate Christmas card purely because the shots were "unique" (enough). Scarily enough, one of the markets I have responsibility for is "Energy & Environment", so waste management companies are some of my customers. 'praps I could sell them some shots... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #48 Posted January 22, 2009 Indeed it is. But two things spring to mind. In those days photographs weren't that common and so had a higher 'value' to those that inherited them, and secondly even those that are available probably only represent a fraction of those that were taken. So it may seem depressing, but it doesn't bother me. Obviously you feel differently. Actually it does not bother me at all. My meeting in the Madison building of the Library of Congress yesterday will ensure that what I produce as well as other project contributor's film does not end up in a landfill... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2009 Share #49 Posted January 22, 2009 My meeting in the Madison building of the Library of Congress yesterday will ensure that what I produce as well as other project contributor's film does not end up in a landfill... Congratulations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xing Posted January 22, 2009 Share #50 Posted January 22, 2009 Whether it ends up in a landfill or some dusty annex that nobody will ever see might make a difference to the photographer but doubtful anyone else (ok, I forgot: his mother ) I maintain that in x-number of decades the only pictures of Obama's reign that anyone of that generation will know about, the ones continually published and/or exhibited, will be because they display outstanding photographic merit, not because they were shot with Kodachrome, Tri-X, Leicas or any other dearly-beloved gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reality Posted January 22, 2009 Share #51 Posted January 22, 2009 Your point is well taken, albeit a bit overstated. Today people shoot (often pushed) Tri-X for the "gritty look" of 1960's photojournalism, but at the time, photogs shot it for the speed but wished there was something they could do to lessen the gritty look. I bet if you could go back now with a D700 and hand it to anyone shooting JFK's inaugural, they'd gladly swap you for their Leicas all the Tri-X (or Kodachrome) in their bag. But unlike you who makes a valid argument, when some goober proclaims: it's awfully hard to take him seriously. In fact, it's hard to take you seriously... Oh, and since you seem to be so quick to mock KM-25 for his use of Kodachrome, where does that leave you commenting on something like Steve McCurry's Afghanastan Girl... taken on Kodachrome, and what was it, one or two shots? Now he's a digital man... where's his next, great, iconic shot? Or his he too busy shooting 300 shots in the hope of picking one or two good ones? Sorry, still waiting. Who actually cares about the D700 and the inaugaration of President Kennedy? It is an irrelevant argument. The camera did not exist at the time, so who cares? You may as well ask what Brassai could have done with the amazing ISO this camera offers. Just think, he could have taken all those great shots in and around Paris... and then converted them in photoshop with some kind of B&W filter! Once again, totally irrelevant! I think the point that you're missing is that KM-25 chooses to use this film for asthetic reasons, and that is perfectly understandable... since film still gives you that asthetic choice. D700; D3, etc, what is the difference? Oh, sort it out in Photoshop with some plug-in... I guess. It might be easy to mock KM-25, but he's got an idea... more than that, he's got a conviction and he's following it through and I can understand exactly where he's coming from and I wish him all the best and look forward to seeing what he gets from the day... despite goobers, such as yourself... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #52 Posted January 22, 2009 Once I got to DC and started working, I simply forgot about what I was shooting with and got to work. From about 1 PM on Monday to 5 PM Tuesday, I made images that told the story I was after, "The Face of Hope". At around midnight, I made my way up to the front of the closest non-tickted viewing area. There about 100 hearty souls camping out. As the night wore on, the cold would chill us to the bone, so much so that many ran off to gather stacked cardboard boxes intended for the post inuagural clean up and made shelters out of them. At one point, a group of 25 young people would stack themselves in a giant "dog-pile" to keep warm. People from all over the world would camp out some 12 hours in the bitter cold to watch history unfold. One young man in my "group" made the trek from as far away as Moscow. Well before sunrise, my group fully understood the signicance of my being there and by sheer luck, found me a white plastic chair to stand on, nearly in the very front of and look back to nearly million people with my cameras. If I did not get some incredible images on Kodachrome of this time in history, it is my own fault. But I worked my self to the bone, so we'll justhave to wait and see.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted January 22, 2009 Share #53 Posted January 22, 2009 Your point is well taken, albeit a bit overstated. Today people shoot (often pushed) Tri-X for the "gritty look" of 1960's photojournalism, but at the time, photogs shot it for the speed but wished there was something they could do to lessen the gritty look. I bet if you could go back now with a D700 and hand it to anyone shooting JFK's inaugural, they'd gladly swap you for their Leicas all the Tri-X (or Kodachrome) in their bag. But unlike you who makes a valid argument, when some goober proclaims: it's awfully hard to take him seriously. I love being a goober also, it's a lot of fun. I blew a half a roll of K64 taking pictures of hummingbirds with an E-M 135/2.8 at F2.8, on a tripod, while I was playing with a Malinois on fresh spring grass. I ruined New Orleans bar scenes with the stuff, my best photos of Pueblo Indian ruins are destined for landfill, I guess I'll go toss the freezer film and replace it with some Porterhouse Steaks. Sometimes, this forum really sucks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #54 Posted January 22, 2009 And sorry about the poor grammar, it's the best I can do from my iPhone in an airport... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #55 Posted January 22, 2009 Sometimes, this forum really sucks. It has always been and always will be case study in human behavior. But as long as you stand by your principals, accept the differences in opininions, then a forum will have value. But I don't like to talk about things as much as I like doing them. And I sure as heck won't "Jynx" my self by saying I got great shots before I have the film in hand. However, the visuals that presented themselves were indeed, incredible so photos aside, this will most certainly be one of the most brilliant things I will ever witness... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2009 Share #56 Posted January 22, 2009 It has always been and always will be case study in human behavior. All you can do is be true to yourself. If you have a vision, and can follow it, then do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 22, 2009 Share #57 Posted January 22, 2009 However, the visuals that presented themselves were indeed, incredible so photos aside, this will most certainly be one of the most brilliant things I will ever witness... I was also there and think it was a very special moment too. But I am a local resident and have been attending and photographing major events in Washington since the 1967 march on the Pentagon when I was 15. So I've seen a few other big events here. I respect anyone's desire to work in a specific way or in your case, a specific medium. But shooting for myself I know I would not have shot the $350 worth of Kodachrome that would have been required to equal what I shot digitally. Sunday, at the concert area, it was pretty dark and cloudy so I shot at 400-1600 ISO into the evening and at the back of the White House. So I think if I had been shooting Kodachrome, I would not have taken a lot of my "best" images from the event as I couldn't have justified the cost for personal shooting and wouldn't have had the higher ISOs that I often needed.. As a funny co-incidence, this gentleman singled me out to ask me if I could help open his camera and re-load T-Max 400 in it. (I guess I looked knowledgeable.) A friend had given it to him to use and he had no clue how to use it. What are the odds that he would have chosen someone else who owns the same Kiev camera? (I didn't have it with me.) Too bad he wasn't carrying some old Kodachrome 120 film. It wouldn't have surprised me. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/74391-the-inauguration-on-kodachrome/?do=findComment&comment=786799'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2009 Share #58 Posted January 22, 2009 Alan, I used to have one of those <grin>. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted January 22, 2009 Alan, I understand you shooting at ISO 400-1600 for those dark shots, but do remember that the time of day or type of light has never stopped good photographers from getting the shot. Bill Allard and David Alan Harvey used light flash and long shutter speeds with Kodachrome with great effect and I used those very same techniques. I used trash cans, fencing, seating and anything else I could find as a camera mount. All I had was ISO 64 and that set the stage for limits being pushed to the utter brink. That is one of the things I love about this film, the severe limits that make me really thinkas a shooter. But alas, to each his own...:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #60 Posted January 22, 2009 By the way, I have been shooting digital professionally for over 14 years, while it is a great, it does not make other mediums any less great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.